1 - Marc-Andre ter Ansplant

[FCBarca]

You could argue it was a turning point in many ways. Barcelona weren't really clicking yet despite Leo's great early goal, a mistake by Mats and a pk could've made the game tighter and asked questions from Barca after the weekend loss - easy to say with the final score that the result was never in doubt but you never know.

Definitely sparked the team, perhaps even took a little out of Celtic too

 

[DonAK]

https://www.theguardian.com/footbal...teams-manchester-city-torino?CMP=share_btn_tw

David Preece is a goalkeeping coach and writer who played professionally in England, Scotland, Denmark and Iceland between 1992-2014

Goalkeeping is the one area where familiarity breeds anything but contempt. It is fundamental in bringing stability, consistency and confidence to a goalkeeper’s – and indeed his team’s – game.

In other words; consistent game time, minutes

But what does this guy know

 

[Barcaman]

Ter Stegen: "Penalty save? There is a bit of luck and also a bit of preparation in training"

Ter Stegen: "The fans are always there, supporting me, and it was motivation for me saving the penalty kick."

Did he say anything about his mistake?

 

[serghei]

Great save for the penalty, but it would be been even better in the future if he can anticipate his speed and the attacker speed and don't commit if he's not sure he can touch the ball. Next time it might be Griezmann instead of some Celtic striker, and problems can appear, especially in Champions League. It was a poor penalty to give away I thought. Can even risk a red card going in like that in some cases.

 

[SahanBarca]

Did he say anything about his mistake?

Shit . No

 

[Kerrybai]

Great save for the penalty, but it would be been even better in the future if he can anticipate his speed and the attacker speed and don't commit if he's not sure he can touch the ball. Next time it might be Griezmann instead of some Celtic striker, and problems can appear, especially in Champions League. It was a poor penalty to give away I thought. Can even risk a red card going in like that in some cases.

I don't know about Europe but in England you can no longer get a red and give away a penalty in those cases.

 

[serghei]

I don't know about Europe but in England you can no longer get a red and give away a penalty in those cases.

You mean, if the player dribbles the keeper and he is in front of the net for a sure goal, the keeper can foul him and it's not a red? That's the stupidest rule in the history of football then. Imagine Suarez vs Ghana without the red card. A penalty is not a sure goal since you have the keeper in front of you. Having the keeper in front of you can't be more advantageous for the striker than an empty net. Applying common logic, with this rule, a penalty works against the team benefiting from it. In this case, it's no longer a penalty, it's a reward for the one who makes the foul. This is probably the most illogic rule ever invented.

But I think it's probably for those cases in which the player had no intention of fouling, or for the cases in which a penalty is already an improvement over the goal scoring situation in which the striker was involved when he was brought down. But not in the cases in which awarding a penalty is actually in the favour of the agressor.

 

[God Serena]

You mean, if the player dribbles the keeper and he is in front of the net for a sure goal, the keeper can foul him and it's not a red? That's the stupidest rule in the history of football then. Imagine Suarez vs Ghana without the red card. A penalty is not a sure goal since you have the keeper in front of you. Having the keeper in front of you can't be more advantageous for the striker than an empty net. Applying common logic, with this rule, a penalty works against the team benefiting from it. In this case, it's no longer a penalty, it's a reward for the one who makes the foul. This is probably the most illogic rule ever invented.

But I think it's probably for those cases in which the player had no intention of fouling, or for the cases in which a penalty is already an improvement over the goal scoring situation in which the striker was involved when he was brought down. But not in the cases in which awarding a penalty is actually in the favour of the agressor.

The triple punishment is no longer a requirement. If the player is making a legitimate effort to get the ball, they get a yellow, instead of straight red. Even if they're the goalkeeper.

I work as a ref and that's one of the biggest rule changes from last season to now, along with not having to kick the ball forwards on kickoff anymore.

 

[TornAndFrayed]

You mean, if the player dribbles the keeper and he is in front of the net for a sure goal, the keeper can foul him and it's not a red? That's the stupidest rule in the history of football then. Imagine Suarez vs Ghana without the red card. A penalty is not a sure goal since you have the keeper in front of you. Having the keeper in front of you can't be more advantageous for the striker than an empty net. Applying common logic, with this rule, a penalty works against the team benefiting from it. In this case, it's no longer a penalty, it's a reward for the one who makes the foul. This is probably the most illogic rule ever invented.

But I think it's probably for those cases in which the player had no intention of fouling, or for the cases in which a penalty is already an improvement over the goal scoring situation in which the striker was involved when he was brought down. But not in the cases in which awarding a penalty is actually in the favour of the agressor.

I don't know much about the rules elsewhere and their evolution, but in France if the last defender fouls in the box, red + penalty is supposed to be automatic. Its very controversial because it obviously breaks the game when wrongly called, and it's even worse in cases where the foul is unclear, very light or entirely involuntary.

I'm not clear ion whether the rule was changed everywhere this season or not.

 

[DonAK]

I don't know much about the rules elsewhere and their evolution, but in France if the last defender fouls in the box, red + penalty is supposed to be automatic. Its very controversial because it obviously breaks the game when wrongly called, and it's even worse in cases where the foul is unclear, very light or entirely involuntary.

I'm not clear ion whether the rule was changed everywhere this season or not.

That shouldn't be the case anymore after the rule changes by IFAB.


- A softening of the rules around denying a goal-scoring opportunity. Refs may now book players instead of dish out instant reds if the fouls aren't dangerous or are accidental.

- An extension of powers to before kick-off, so refs can now send a player off before the game starts.

- Players can now receive treatment on the pitch instead of being forced off to the sidelines

-The IFAB have also approved a two-year trial period of video technology to assist referees, to be used in four cases: to determine if a goal has been scored, red cards, penalties and mistaken identity.

Not to forget that you don't need to move the ball at kick-off anymore which I'm sure most people have noticed.

Did he say anything about his mistake?

Shit . No

He said he admittedly was a bit late.

 

[Kerrybai]

You mean, if the player dribbles the keeper and he is in front of the net for a sure goal, the keeper can foul him and it's not a red? That's the stupidest rule in the history of football then. Imagine Suarez vs Ghana without the red card. A penalty is not a sure goal since you have the keeper in front of you. Having the keeper in front of you can't be more advantageous for the striker than an empty net. Applying common logic, with this rule, a penalty works against the team benefiting from it. In this case, it's no longer a penalty, it's a reward for the one who makes the foul. This is probably the most illogic rule ever invented.

But I think it's probably for those cases in which the player had no intention of fouling, or for the cases in which a penalty is already an improvement over the goal scoring situation in which the striker was involved when he was brought down. But not in the cases in which awarding a penalty is actually in the favour of the agressor.

Have a look at Leicesters 3rd goal today which was a penalty after Jamie Vardy was brought down by the keeper. Looks like the new rules apply to Europe too. You are right in that it appears to now benefit the keeper to take the player out if he's certain of a goal. The idea is to avoid a double punishment, i.e. losing a player and a goal from the penalty...of course if the spot kick is missed then the aggressor benefits greatly.

 

[God Serena]

Have a look at Leicesters 3rd goal today which was a penalty after Jamie Vardy was brought down by the keeper. Looks like the new rules apply to Europe too. You are right in that it appears to now benefit the keeper to take the player out if he's certain of a goal. The idea is to avoid a double punishment, i.e. losing a player and a goal from the penalty...of course if the spot kick is missed then the aggressor benefits greatly.

Penalties are already pretty heavily favoring the attacking player, anyways. If a keeper can make a tactical foul and save the spot kick, fair play to them.

 

[CatalinR10]

it's like he doesn't even care about the team

 

[Luftstalag14]

it's like he doesn't even care about the team

Am I not getting your humor or what, Catalinutz?

 

[oneirophobos]

It's Cillessen's fault for staying on the bench!