Current version

Posted January 22, 2025 10:30 · last edited January 22, 2025 10:35

martinb
Nelfoos
It's a foul, but if Elliot stays on his feet and defends instead of going down when he doesn't have to then there's no goal. Should know by now you can't rely on the refs.

AFC just switch off for a moment and it cost them that second goal.

Probably deserve that equaliser though, how is no one marking Rogerson there?

Elliot’s got front position and eyes for the ball. He doesn’t choose to go down.

Yes he does. How he falls is completely unnatural when you look at the contact made. Clearly feels the tug and chooses to go down, although definitely looks worse on the slo-mo.

Shouldn't have been a goal, but it's poor defending.

Previous versions

2 versions
Unknown editor edited January 22, 2025 10:35
martinb
Nelfoos
It's a foul, but if Elliot stays on his feet and defends instead of going down when he doesn't have to then there's no goal. Should know by now you can't rely on the refs.

AFC just switch off for a moment and it cost them that second goal.

Probably deserve that equaliser though, how is no one marking Rogerson there?

Elliot’s got front position and eyes for the ball. He doesn’t choose to go down.

Yes he does. How he falls is completely unnatural when you look at the contact made. Clearly feels the tug and chooses to go down.

Shouldn't have been a goal, but it's poor defending.
Unknown editor edited January 22, 2025 10:31
martinb
Nelfoos
It's a foul, but if Elliot stays on his feet and defends instead of going down when he doesn't have to then there's no goal. Should know by now you can't rely on the refs.

AFC just switch off for a moment and it cost them that second goal.

Probably deserve that equaliser though, how is no one marking Rogerson there?

Elliot’s got front position and eyes for the ball. He doesn’t choose to go down.

Yes he does. How he falls is completely unnatural when you look at the contact made. Kicks the legs back, throws the head up and looks for the call.