Clutching at Straws

Im surprised to see a journalist put his name to an article that is entirely written at clutching at straws. For every point made here in dissecting Styles goal there is a counter argument. Also i would have thought true journalism would have a balanced view and also ow dissect the quality of our second goal.

lazy journalism i think not as there is a lot if work in this but clutching at straws - definitely yes.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www....barnsley-callum-styles-stoke-goal-5045066.amp

 

How on earth do you end up looking on Stoke on Trent live ?

 

An oxymoron surely?

 

Interfering with play or an opponent is a rule which seems to be rarely applied these days.

 

I saw this yesterday, definitely clutching at straws mate, their players or manager didn’t appeal it and looking at the comments below the piece it seems even their fans disagree.

 

It was on Twitter yesterday

 

He’s correct obviously,
I did think at the time it was 50/50, but either the officials missed it or they decided the ball traveled far enough for Morris not to be effecting Gunn’s line of sight.

 

Well if Abraham’s goal hanging goal was good then so should that be,Collins was effected by Abraham’s being there as not knowing wether to come out or not,Gunn never complained so end of for me

 

I can see the argument for Morris interfering with play.

To be honest, it's not something I'd even considered prior to this thread, and I've seen the goal maybe a hundred times. That shows how much of a job the officials have.

A lot of Stoke fans criticised their keepers positioning at the time, which to me is ludicrous, as there's no way he could have perceived Styles hitting it so well. I put it down to the keeper being unsighted. But in that regard, Morris is one of a number of bodies who you could say are obstructing the keepers view. Does the keeper save that if Morris is 2 yards further up the pitch, absolutely not.

 

Never mind all that, I've just noticed something else. What is Collins doing so far out of his goal?

 

Disagree, according to the letter of the law, the fact that they admit Gunn, is leaning to see the ball means he wasn’t impeded as he could see the ball when it was hit.

 

None of the players did, which speaks volumes. Commentators often say you can tell by players reactions.

 

I read that report and my first thought was it would have been more balanced journalism if he had also examined the validity of Frieser’s goal at the same time

 

If Gunn’s view was impeded he would’ve been running to the linesman to appeal, just like he did for the second goal.

 

End of day we won 2 nil ,cry me a river Stoke live

 

Fcku em

 

To be fair, I thought Morris was offside and kind of in the way as he had to dodge the ball. But as others have said, literally none of the Stoke players appealed for anything. Thankfully, because the ref would’ve probably disallowed it.

 

End of the day they were nowhere near scoring a goal. We scored 3 (one offside)

 

From the camera behind the goal, on Matchday Recap, it's plain to see that Gunn had a clear sight of the ball, which travelled about a yard to the right of Morris. There was no interference.

 

More to the point what's Helik doing playing up front? Get back defending...... Seriously though he's doing a great job mixing it up front. Needs to work on his finishing though

Edit - I know we'd just won a corner