Gigolo-Aunt Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Why was it chopped off? Seemed like the keeper made a Miles Hunt of it to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC_92 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Absolutely no reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dia Liom Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Yep it was definately a fair goal. I suppose it evens up the penalty decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beverley Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 i wondered the same. the official line seems to be it was a foul on the keeper, but surely the keeper out to have gone round the front of nade? also, when the header went in, there was no contact a strange one, but unfortunately these things happen, no matter how frustrating it is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest juvehearts Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 that was to ballance up the peanlty decision. you should be asking how did he not score in dying mins of the game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosanostra Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Played well today even with the terrible miss at the death. His goal was completely fine, not even a hint of a foul. Blunder by the ref. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Plissken Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Nade farted in the near vicinity of Mak-flappity thus offending the keeper's delicate nasal passages. Stick on, 100%, stonewall foul. Remove the maroon-tinted specs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Grimes Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 just a symptom of keepers being over-protected. it should have stood, but i wasn't surprised to see it chopped off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Palmer Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Afraid I missed this incident as I was away buying some beer; any detailed descriptions would be helpful! Header/shot/challenge? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonedinoz Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 I thought there was absolutley nothign wrong with it, althuogh goalkeepers are a bit liek koalas (proctected species). Evens up for the penalty I guess, which was a stonewaller. Overall I thought the result was about right, with Hibs coming into a bit more in the second half, and the possibility of hem scoring on the break. I thought Kingston was a class act Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Winstone Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 It was a goal - simple as that. Evens up the penalty decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighusref Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Played well today even with the terrible miss at the death. His goal was completely fine, not even a hint of a foul. Blunder by the ref. Disagree mate. Any chance he had was lost by his poor first touch and the chance at the end was a gimme. As for the goal that was chopped off, it was a clear goal, no reason to chop it off whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dazo Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Nade will never be prolific but IMO he makes us tick up front. If we are going to persist with up front it has to be him. Thought he had a great game. The goal was chopped off because the ref didn't give them a penalty. Only reason i can think off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wattie Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Nade had an unusually poor first touch today or he could have had a hat trick. The goal was perfectly good, but it will even itself out when we get a dodgy penalty against Celtic... isn't that how it works?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Lannister Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 I thought there was absolutley nothign wrong with it, althuogh goalkeepers are a bit liek koalas (proctected species). Evens up for the penalty I guess, which was a stonewaller. Overall I thought the result was about right, with Hibs coming into a bit more in the second half, and the possibility of hem scoring on the break. I thought Kingston was a class act Huh? Kingston was the worst player in maroon today, his attitude stinks and he clearly thinks he should be playing for a team "better" than hearts. He showed a couple of nice touches here and there but was was overall rank-rotten. Plus, anybody see what happened when he appeared to start 'squaring" Zaliukas, I couldn't really see the incident from where I was standing but he clearly lost his temper and I think we should bin him for a couple of games, yes he does have some of the best ability in the team but if we do that, atleast, his hunger for the game might come back. FTH:107years: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devries4 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 sorry but not even with the maroon tinted specs was that a penalty. ratboy straightened the leg for effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 fekin disgrace, there was no foul. typical scottish refereeing 'honest mistake'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maple Leaf Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 The goal should have stood. The referee made a mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Groot Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 He needs to loose some weight, I know its been done to death but......... Seriously? He looks fitter than I have ever seen him including his Sheff Utd days. The fact he lasted 90 mins says it all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Don Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Noting wrong with Nades goal from what ive seen and even at the time seeing it it looked ok. I cant believe the retards over on ourflairfootballhasgone.net claiming Nade handled the ball thats why it was chopped off., and some claiming he actually fouled makalamity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibpc Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 It could have been for holding a defender at the front post. There was a cluster of players there as the ball came over. Nade did nothing wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stirlingshirejambo Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 It could have been for holding a defender at the front post. There was a cluster of players there as the ball came over. Nade did nothing wrong. There was no doubt this is just referees being over protective, not surprised in the lease that a free kick was given. Still the wrong decision but fairly predictable none the less Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H2 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Evens up the penalty decision - erm no, they could have missed the penalty. Also, might look a stone wall penalty but have another look, Riordan is almost static but gets a big boost of energy to fall into and over EJ's legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chat Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Worst decision of the day by far. And there were a few ropey ones from that useless bozo Smith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigrsSlopBukit Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 No foul,good goal Nadia however has no first touch whatsoever,no pace and must be feckin ******-eyed Anybody who rates him as a forward is seriously deranged in my book Any of the reserves could of won it at the death for us,period! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_R Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 I thought there was absolutley nothign wrong with it, althuogh goalkeepers are a bit liek koalas (proctected species). Evens up for the penalty I guess, which was a stonewaller. Overall I thought the result was about right, with Hibs coming into a bit more in the second half, and the possibility of hem scoring on the break. I thought Kingston was a class act watching a different game from me mate. Overall we were the better team and should have won although admitadly hibs still had their chances and probably would have felt hard done by if they hadn't took anything from it. As for kingston he had a shocker! I know football is about opinions but I'd say you didn't know alot about the game if you though kingston was a 'class act' based on todays performance. He should have been subbed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambo19 Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 nade jumps, ball goes up and he jumps again to knock it in. never looks at the goalie, goal should stand! the refs decision is basically saying every time the ball goes in the box the goalie is the only one allowed to get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Afraid I missed this incident as I was away buying some beer; any detailed descriptions would be helpful! Header/shot/challenge? Thanks The Wimbledon keeper rushed to his near post to punch the ball but just ran into Nade (who was standing still, doing nothing wrong). he collided with Nade and flapped at the ball which dropped for Nade to nod into an empty goal. Pesh poor refereeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 nade jumps, ball goes up and he jumps again to knock it in. never looks at the goalie, goal should stand! the refs decision is basically saying every time the ball goes in the box the goalie is the only one allowed to get it. spot on. i wonder if the same rules would apply at our end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
south morocco Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 his miss at the end was truly unbelievable what a muppet. if we'd had a decent striker today we'd have won no problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
husref musemic Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 NO pace, poor fitness, sh te first touch. Fine goal however that should have stood. More to do with the goalie flapping than nade's skill. he is hopeless. ship out asap - miss at the end was the cherry on the cake for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winston churchill Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 nothing wrong with the goal. big bomb scare frank bruno.........flapped at it. maybe the ref making up for their penalty;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambotony Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 watching a different game from me mate. Overall we were the better team and should have won although admitadly hibs still had their chances and probably would have felt hard done by if they hadn't took anything from it. As for kingston he had a shocker! I know football is about opinions but I'd say you didn't know alot about the game if you though kingston was a 'class act' based on todays performance. He should have been subbed. He was! Albeit with a minute to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Al Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 nade jumps, ball goes up and he jumps again to knock it in. never looks at the goalie, goal should stand! the refs decision is basically saying every time the ball goes in the box the goalie is the only one allowed to get it. sums up my thoughts perfectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamboMarc Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 spot on. i wonder if the same rules would apply at our end. Stupid question! Of couse they would:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Rock Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Funny how people see things differently: I thought Nade was poor today. He got a lot of ball from the midfield and generally failed to anticipate the pass, or failed to get up enough speed to make it to the ball (he bottled the first-half 50:50 with Ma'Kalamity) or he failed to controlled the ball. The 'goal' looked legitimate: Nade certainly didn't exert himself enough to actually foul the keeper... In fairness I was watching on the telly, so if people who were there thought he put in a good shift, I'll bow to their first-hand experience, but from where I was sat he offered little in the way of a goal threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victorian Posted October 19, 2008 Share Posted October 19, 2008 Stupid question! Of couse they would:rolleyes: which red-top do you write for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.