Those of you booing their keeper....

[Stanley]

One question:

WHY?

:confused: :confused:

Obviously he was not time-wasting as clearly he was injured.

[Rich]

I'll tell you why. Routledge goes in with him and he gets "hurt". He then continues playing and makes another challenge then a diving save down low. He then decides he needs attention. If it was that bad how did he manage to make a challenge and then dive across and make another save?

[Nik29]

He got smashed!

He had a head wound but the ball was in a dangerous area so he played on and fair play to him.. he needed to have his head seen to.

No complaints at all.

[Rich]

If you're hurt, you're hurt. If you're not, you're not. If you're winning and want to waste time......you'll be the Leicester keeper

[Nik29]

If you're hurt, you're hurt. If you're not, you're not. If you're winning and want to waste time......you'll be the Leicester keeper

He got smashed in the head, if you've ever played as a goalkeeper you'd know how much that sort of challenge can hurt.

With the ball in their box he wasn't exactly gonna lie there and let us score now was he?

[Rich]

He got smashed in the head, if you've ever played as a goalkeeper you'd know how much that sort of challenge can hurt.

With the ball in their box he wasn't exactly gonna lie there and let us score now was he?

So he wasn't hurt then is that what you're saying??? Very confused....

I'm not saying he wasn't hurt a little but if he is ok to carry on when it suits Leicester why isn't he well enough to play on when it suits the 17000 in the ground?

[Nik29]

So he wasn't hurt then is that what you're saying??? Very confused....

I'm not saying he wasn't hurt a little but if he is ok to carry on when it suits Leicester why isn't he well enough to play on when it suits the 17000 in the ground?

I'm saying he was hurt and needed that headbang thing round him.

He played on because it was vital at that point of the game that he did, no matter how hurt he was, as their goal was under threat.

He blatantly needed treatment, with head injuries you have to allow for a stoppage.

[kingo]

I'm saying he was hurt and needed that headbang thing round him.

He played on because it was vital at that point of the game that he did, no matter how hurt he was, as their goal was under threat.

He blatantly needed treatment, with head injuries you have to allow for a stoppage.

Sorry mate it was gamesmanship and it helped to break up our play and give the advantage back to them

[m_cooper]

it was a blood injury so the game had to be stopped anyway

[Gtleighsr3]

He did nothing wrong and did what he had todo,im biased though as my kids a keeper.

[Stanley]

I see.

So he has blood dripping down his face but you call it "gamesmanship" and you think he should just carry on regardless?

Any injury drawing blood has to be stopped now anyway, under the rules.

Perhaps the booers need to think again before being so quick to condemn, no?
Or perhaps 'thinking' is a step beyond some of them.

[m_cooper]

i admit it could have looked like gamesmanship,but it clearly wasn't

[stan_bowles]

Cerny would have probably done the same if he was in his position and we were winning 2-1.

All part of the game people.

[kingo]

I see.

So he has blood dripping down his face but you call it "gamesmanship" and you think he should just carry on regardless?

Any injury drawing blood has to be stopped now anyway, under the rules.

Perhaps the booers need to think again before being so quick to condemn, no?
Or perhaps 'thinking' is a step beyond some of them.

As you say if it was a blood injury the ref would have had to stop it, we didn't need the theatrics of him sinking to his knees after he had just dived around making saves.

[stan_bowles]

As you say if it was a blood injury the ref would have had to stop it, we didn't need the theatrics of him sinking to his knees after he had just dived around making saves.

If you want theatrics then watch Tarrabt run into the box.