Cheers Ramdini. Good to have the official confirmation that Redmond’s shot was heading into the net before Keogh touched it. That will put an end to the debate on that one.
A mention for Bryson who Lampard singled out for praise. After some anonymous displays recently I thought he was good, especially in the second half. Maybe he’s not quite finished at Derby after all.
I Hope not. He did well I agree. I forgot to mention his contribution.
And, they were all better in the second half. Maybe Frank's tactical change or the encouragement that Nuge provided, or the settling of our young players.
Thanks Ramdini
Absolutely no criticism of Nuge intended, but I just wonder that, if his pass at the end had pushed Marriott slightly wider, he would have had more of an angle to beat the keeper ?
However, purely academic...
Crowd was just over 17,000. Vidal is wrong about Redmond's shot as well. Do I have to give lessons on basic Euclidean geometry that dunderhead. I agree it was a deflection but he didn't need to deflect it as it was missing the goal. Most defenders in that.
position would try to clear the ball but Keogh made a hash of it. It would have needed more skill than Keogh possesses to clear the ball from that position,
I also thought Bryson's contribution was minimal, Holmes was carrying midfield on his own. Just as well he had one of those performances which come along once in a while.
OK Spart have it your way if you must discredit Keogh, as usual. They were all poor (except Holmes to start with) for some reason we were not at the races (so to speak) to begin with. Later Bryson and others did OK.
I don't discredit Keogh as usual, I am one of his defenders. If only he defended like I defend him. I acknowledge the number of times he has saved us but there is no denying that every season he will make major blunders leading to goals. I accept this while his net contribution is positive. I can't think of a faster central defender in the Championship.
Well - now that you have explained I think my view of Keogh is identical to yours. We just differ on the deflection. You happen to think it was deliberate and the result of some kind of volition on his part. It didn't seem like that to me. I have not seen a replay so maybe that will clear things up.
It was a deliberate attempt to clear the ball which he made a hash of. The ball was travelling with pace so the clearance would have been difficult for a world class defender. Most defenders wouldn't have made that error because they wouldn't have the pace to reach the ball. It was only on the replay that I noticed the ball was going just wide, something Keogh would not have known. O can't blame him for trying but the goal was due to his error, not Redmond's shot.
Spart, you choose to believe the evidence of your eyes, eyes that as we know have let you down so completely so many times. A wiser man might learn from this A man with a more scientific mind wouldn’t place faith in something as subjective as his own eyesight, particularly when, as we have heard previously, the visual acuity in question is unable to discern anything more than vague shapes moving around somewhere in the distance.
I sympathise: what with your floaters and cataracts, it must be like trying to peer through the asteroid belt on a foggy day. Physical failings come to us all, I imagine, but more distressing for me is the evidence of mental frailty that leads you to continue to believe in your failing faculties. Facts are facts, Spart:
Derby 2 (Marriott, Lawrence) Southampton 2 (Redmond 2). Get someone you trust to read it to you out of the newspaper if you don’t believe me.
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
............ but the goal was due to his error, not Redmond's shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody Hell Spart, even I can acknowledge that the goal WAS due to Redmonds shot!
Is he claiming that Redmond didn’t even shoot now?
No Redmond's shot was missing the goal so it couldn't possibly have been due to the shot or has that bit of logic escaped your even simpler mind. Please feel free to slap yourself in the face more often, it may knock some sense in to that vacuous head.
Spart, we’ve all witnessed the rapid decline of your faculties and let’s face it, you weren’t exactly starting off from a position of strength in the first place. It began with the comical confusion of this player or other with that player or other, and you saying that well, they all look quite similar and my eyes aren’t what they used to be. Then you told us how you heard on the radio of Omar Mascarelle starring in El Classico, but it was Marcelo, so you said well, they all sound quite similar and my ears aren’t what they used to be.
This is why you are completely unaware of the cows closing in on you until one of them impales you on its horns, Spart. You’re living in a cocoon of oblivion. Get someone to go out with you. Establish a system of them poking you with a stick or something, to warn you of homicidal cattle and to tell you who it is that’s on the pitch and whether they have scored a goal or not. And never forget, I am here for you, always.
As I said Vidal, I thought the ball was going in when I saw it live but watching the replay shows it was definitely missing. Go to the BBC site, click on the game result Derby-Southampton, then look at the highlights video. Now take a clear plastic rule, hold it on your computer screen and follow the trajectory of the shot. Then apply Newton's first law and you will come to the only conclusion possible, the ball would have missed without the impressed force of Keogh's foot.
Cheers Spart, done all that, proves it was going in. That’s why the boffins who scrutinise these things gave the goal to Redmond. If it had been missing they would heave given it as an own goal. It’s really very simple. Maybe your cathode ray tube is bit warped. Get someone to take a look at it.
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
posted 11 minutes ago
As I said Vidal, I thought the ball was going in when I saw it live but watching the replay shows it was definitely missing. Go to the BBC site, click on the game result Derby-Southampton, then look at the highlights video. Now take a clear plastic rule, hold it on your computer screen and follow the trajectory of the shot. Then apply Newton's first law and you will come to the only conclusion possible, the ball would have missed without the impressed force of Keogh's foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Keogh have the time to get pout his clear plastic rule before deliberately deflecting the shot? Answer that question and you can decide - inadvertent deflection or own goal.
But the real puzzle is - Why does Spart want it to be an own goal?
Rather it wasn't a goal at all Ramdini, which would have been the case had not Keogh intervened. Now we have the distraction of a replay to our primary task of gaining promotion.
Top stuff this, and the reason I am happy to pay my subscription
I don't know who decides who has scored a goal in situations like Southampton's first, but if as I suspect they are "football experts", they'll probably be as thick as pig5hit and won't understand the first thing about physics.
I’m pretty sure Spart doesnt adjudicate on these things, Scouse.
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Rather it wasn't a goal at all Ramdini, which would have been the case had not Keogh intervened. Now we have the distraction of a replay to our primary task of gaining promotion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Intervened' suggests a deliberate action on Keogh's part. I don't think he made such a move. I think he simply existed at that moment and in that place when the shot was released. He could no more have avoided it than fly in the air.
comment by Let Me inRamdini (U21882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Rather it wasn't a goal at all Ramdini, which would have been the case had not Keogh intervened. Now we have the distraction of a replay to our primary task of gaining promotion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Intervened' suggests a deliberate action on Keogh's part. I don't think he made such a move. I think he simply existed at that moment and in that place when the shot was released. He could no more have avoided it than fly in the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramdini, you need to go to Specsavers if you think Keogh actions were not deliberate. He must have a terrible "tick" in his right leg if that is the case, have another look:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46706909
Sign in if you want to comment
FA Cup for Those who Could not attend
Page 1 of 3
posted on 6/1/19
Cheers Ramdini. Good to have the official confirmation that Redmond’s shot was heading into the net before Keogh touched it. That will put an end to the debate on that one.
A mention for Bryson who Lampard singled out for praise. After some anonymous displays recently I thought he was good, especially in the second half. Maybe he’s not quite finished at Derby after all.
posted on 6/1/19
I Hope not. He did well I agree. I forgot to mention his contribution.
posted on 6/1/19
And, they were all better in the second half. Maybe Frank's tactical change or the encouragement that Nuge provided, or the settling of our young players.
posted on 6/1/19
Thank you Ramdini
posted on 6/1/19
Thanks Ramdini
Absolutely no criticism of Nuge intended, but I just wonder that, if his pass at the end had pushed Marriott slightly wider, he would have had more of an angle to beat the keeper ?
However, purely academic...
posted on 6/1/19
Crowd was just over 17,000. Vidal is wrong about Redmond's shot as well. Do I have to give lessons on basic Euclidean geometry that dunderhead. I agree it was a deflection but he didn't need to deflect it as it was missing the goal. Most defenders in that.
position would try to clear the ball but Keogh made a hash of it. It would have needed more skill than Keogh possesses to clear the ball from that position,
I also thought Bryson's contribution was minimal, Holmes was carrying midfield on his own. Just as well he had one of those performances which come along once in a while.
posted on 6/1/19
OK Spart have it your way if you must discredit Keogh, as usual. They were all poor (except Holmes to start with) for some reason we were not at the races (so to speak) to begin with. Later Bryson and others did OK.
posted on 6/1/19
I don't discredit Keogh as usual, I am one of his defenders. If only he defended like I defend him. I acknowledge the number of times he has saved us but there is no denying that every season he will make major blunders leading to goals. I accept this while his net contribution is positive. I can't think of a faster central defender in the Championship.
posted on 6/1/19
Well - now that you have explained I think my view of Keogh is identical to yours. We just differ on the deflection. You happen to think it was deliberate and the result of some kind of volition on his part. It didn't seem like that to me. I have not seen a replay so maybe that will clear things up.
posted on 6/1/19
It was a deliberate attempt to clear the ball which he made a hash of. The ball was travelling with pace so the clearance would have been difficult for a world class defender. Most defenders wouldn't have made that error because they wouldn't have the pace to reach the ball. It was only on the replay that I noticed the ball was going just wide, something Keogh would not have known. O can't blame him for trying but the goal was due to his error, not Redmond's shot.
posted on 6/1/19
Spart, you choose to believe the evidence of your eyes, eyes that as we know have let you down so completely so many times. A wiser man might learn from this A man with a more scientific mind wouldn’t place faith in something as subjective as his own eyesight, particularly when, as we have heard previously, the visual acuity in question is unable to discern anything more than vague shapes moving around somewhere in the distance.
I sympathise: what with your floaters and cataracts, it must be like trying to peer through the asteroid belt on a foggy day. Physical failings come to us all, I imagine, but more distressing for me is the evidence of mental frailty that leads you to continue to believe in your failing faculties. Facts are facts, Spart:
Derby 2 (Marriott, Lawrence) Southampton 2 (Redmond 2). Get someone you trust to read it to you out of the newspaper if you don’t believe me.
posted on 6/1/19
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
............ but the goal was due to his error, not Redmond's shot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloody Hell Spart, even I can acknowledge that the goal WAS due to Redmonds shot!
posted on 6/1/19
Is he claiming that Redmond didn’t even shoot now?
posted on 6/1/19
No Redmond's shot was missing the goal so it couldn't possibly have been due to the shot or has that bit of logic escaped your even simpler mind. Please feel free to slap yourself in the face more often, it may knock some sense in to that vacuous head.
posted on 6/1/19
Spart, we’ve all witnessed the rapid decline of your faculties and let’s face it, you weren’t exactly starting off from a position of strength in the first place. It began with the comical confusion of this player or other with that player or other, and you saying that well, they all look quite similar and my eyes aren’t what they used to be. Then you told us how you heard on the radio of Omar Mascarelle starring in El Classico, but it was Marcelo, so you said well, they all sound quite similar and my ears aren’t what they used to be.
This is why you are completely unaware of the cows closing in on you until one of them impales you on its horns, Spart. You’re living in a cocoon of oblivion. Get someone to go out with you. Establish a system of them poking you with a stick or something, to warn you of homicidal cattle and to tell you who it is that’s on the pitch and whether they have scored a goal or not. And never forget, I am here for you, always.
posted on 6/1/19
As I said Vidal, I thought the ball was going in when I saw it live but watching the replay shows it was definitely missing. Go to the BBC site, click on the game result Derby-Southampton, then look at the highlights video. Now take a clear plastic rule, hold it on your computer screen and follow the trajectory of the shot. Then apply Newton's first law and you will come to the only conclusion possible, the ball would have missed without the impressed force of Keogh's foot.
posted on 6/1/19
Cheers Spart, done all that, proves it was going in. That’s why the boffins who scrutinise these things gave the goal to Redmond. If it had been missing they would heave given it as an own goal. It’s really very simple. Maybe your cathode ray tube is bit warped. Get someone to take a look at it.
posted on 6/1/19
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
posted 11 minutes ago
As I said Vidal, I thought the ball was going in when I saw it live but watching the replay shows it was definitely missing. Go to the BBC site, click on the game result Derby-Southampton, then look at the highlights video. Now take a clear plastic rule, hold it on your computer screen and follow the trajectory of the shot. Then apply Newton's first law and you will come to the only conclusion possible, the ball would have missed without the impressed force of Keogh's foot.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Did Keogh have the time to get pout his clear plastic rule before deliberately deflecting the shot? Answer that question and you can decide - inadvertent deflection or own goal.
posted on 6/1/19
But the real puzzle is - Why does Spart want it to be an own goal?
posted on 6/1/19
Rather it wasn't a goal at all Ramdini, which would have been the case had not Keogh intervened. Now we have the distraction of a replay to our primary task of gaining promotion.
posted on 6/1/19
Top stuff this, and the reason I am happy to pay my subscription
posted on 6/1/19
I don't know who decides who has scored a goal in situations like Southampton's first, but if as I suspect they are "football experts", they'll probably be as thick as pig5hit and won't understand the first thing about physics.
posted on 6/1/19
I’m pretty sure Spart doesnt adjudicate on these things, Scouse.
posted on 6/1/19
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Rather it wasn't a goal at all Ramdini, which would have been the case had not Keogh intervened. Now we have the distraction of a replay to our primary task of gaining promotion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Intervened' suggests a deliberate action on Keogh's part. I don't think he made such a move. I think he simply existed at that moment and in that place when the shot was released. He could no more have avoided it than fly in the air.
posted on 6/1/19
comment by Let Me inRamdini (U21882)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by I'm not Spartacus, to be quite Frank (U4603)
posted 1 hour, 26 minutes ago
Rather it wasn't a goal at all Ramdini, which would have been the case had not Keogh intervened. Now we have the distraction of a replay to our primary task of gaining promotion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
'Intervened' suggests a deliberate action on Keogh's part. I don't think he made such a move. I think he simply existed at that moment and in that place when the shot was released. He could no more have avoided it than fly in the air.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ramdini, you need to go to Specsavers if you think Keogh actions were not deliberate. He must have a terrible "tick" in his right leg if that is the case, have another look:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46706909
Page 1 of 3