Disallowed Goal

[ThatJa]

Was bollocks.

That counts and it changes the game.

 

[Cappy]

Was at the game so only got one real-time view of it. Are there any online replays of it, with a decent angle?

 

[wizadry]

Whilst ever there is VA bastard R decisions will go against us and many other teams and people say football isn’t bent, arr, alreyt.

 

[Karaoke Blade]

Bent.

 

[Overthehills]

Bent.

 

[Champagneblade]

The FA and PGMOL will have their hands tied up this week

What with having to go back and retrospectively rule out every bicycle and scissor kick goal since the beginning of time.

If it was given I can't see the analyst in the studio finding a compelling reason to disallow it. You can see it now:
"Should it have been disallowed for high feet?"
"No, I don't see how it should. He has his back to the player, his non kicking foot is on the ground, it's the defensive player who stoops down and he doesn't even get anywhere near the ball. Good finish."

It's just annoying the lazy narrative on some reports that Wolves cruised to a regulation 3-0 win.

1-1 at half time would have had them on the back foot.

 

[Bobby b]

What really annoys me is that the referee disallowed it and the var team deemed it the referee didn't make a mistake but I know with a fair level of certainty that if the ref had allowed it then the var team would have said that the ref didn't make a mistake and they would have allowed it as well, how can that be right

 

[wizadry]

What really annoys me is that the referee disallowed it and the var team deemed it the referee didn't make a mistake but I know with a fair level of certainty that if the ref had allowed it then the var team would have said that the ref didn't make a mistake and they would have allowed it as well, how can that be right

….because football is bent as fuck.

 

[Panini]

What really annoys me is that the referee disallowed it and the var team deemed it the referee didn't make a mistake but I know with a fair level of certainty that if the ref had allowed it then the var team would have said that the ref didn't make a mistake and they would have allowed it as well, how can that be right

The offence is dangerous play, which is subjective and therefore an opinion. ie it can't be measured, like offside. Some incidents will be cut and dried, others will be marginal, like this one.

VAR isn't about overruling an opinion with another opinion, so for all subjective incidents the on-field referee's decision stands. They had a quick look, to ensure it wasn't howler, and that was that.

I agree that it wouldn't have been ruled out had the referee allowed it. The process worked fine here, and it wasn't really anything to do with VAR. The problem is the on-field referee's being somewhere between wrong and harsh.

That said, we'd have been annoyed to have that goal allowed against us so it's horses for courses.

 

[jono_t2000]

The offence is dangerous play, which is subjective and therefore an opinion. ie it can't be measured, like offside. Some incidents will be cut and dried, others will be marginal, like this one.

VAR isn't about overruling an opinion with another opinion, so for all subjective incidents the on-field referee's decision stands. They had a quick look, to ensure it wasn't howler, and that was that.

I agree that it wouldn't have been ruled out had the referee allowed it. The process worked fine here, and it wasn't really anything to do with VAR. The problem is the on-field referee's being somewhere between wrong and harsh.

That said, we'd have been annoyed to have that goal allowed against us so it's horses for courses.

Yup agreed if ref allowed it, VAR would have allowed it.

Can't blame VAR for this one sorry lads.

 

[Working Class Hero]

Yup agreed if ref allowed it, VAR would have allowed it.

Can't blame VAR for this one sorry lads.

The fact that VAR exists in the first place does affect the on field decision though, we've seen it time and time again. I'm.nkt necessarily saying this happened here, but plenty of refs now bottle big decisions, knowing that VAR will have another look.

Three years in now and it's still made refereeing (and the game itself) far worse.

 

[MunXy]

My only argument is none, including the defender involved appealed it, they were to a man trudging back to kick off, so obviously they thought it a goal and no problem.
If that had happened at the kop end at BDTBL against us, we would have said shitty defending.
Goal all day long but I guess it's the Blades way

 

[Panini]

My only argument is none, including the defender involved appealed it, they were to a man trudging back to kick off, so obviously they thought it a goal and no problem.
If that had happened at the kop end at BDTBL against us, we would have said shitty defending.
Goal all day long but I guess it's the Blades way

3 defenders appealing, more likely for offside, and the keeper appealing for anything. Plus the defender who challenged Sharp is holding his head. Maybe the ref fell for it, but he didn't make it up out of thin air.

 

[Trigger Blade]

It’s hard to imagine the three defenders asking the linesman to flag for foot up from forty yards away, so it had to be an offside appeal from them. Accordingly, none of the Wolves players appealed for what the ref gave.

 

[bakeblade]

Was bollocks.

That counts and it changes the game.

It reminded me again how crap the Premier league is with refs decisions and players appealing for anything, quite a few times yesterday their players went down after the slightest touch. They go down, squeal and get the decision. That goal stands in the EFL.

 

[mattbianco1]

Plus the defender who challenged Sharp is holding his head

Why the back of his head though?

 

[Panini]

Why the back of his head though?

Dunno, I'm not justifying it. We all know that refs respond to arms raised. It's just a myth to suggest Wolves trudged back to kickoff.

 

[WORKSOPBLADE]

Disgraceful decision. No debate!

 

[Champagneblade]

View attachment 127765
3 defenders appealing, more likely for offside, and the keeper appealing for anything. Plus the defender who challenged Sharp is holding his head. Maybe the ref fell for it, but he didn't make it up out of thin air.

Set of fannies. Fancy ducking your head, not taking one for the team and appealing for a foul because you were almost brave enough. Pathetic really.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Pathetic decision. It looked it from the away end, it looks it now.

 

[Billyblade]

Are we going to disallow every overhead kick goal now?

Because they're certainly a lot more dangerous than Billy's yesterday.

 

[dazzlingblade]

Dangerous play my arse, if that was in the 80s, the ref would have been sent off for disallowing it

Showing my age but football is becoming wank

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

1-1 at half time would have had them on the back foot.

If McGoldrick didn't have the finishing prowess of Devon Loch, it should've been so much worse for them.

 

[PokerBlade]

The offence is dangerous play, which is subjective and therefore an opinion. ie it can't be measured, like offside. Some incidents will be cut and dried, others will be marginal, like this one.

VAR isn't about overruling an opinion with another opinion, so for all subjective incidents the on-field referee's decision stands. They had a quick look, to ensure it wasn't howler, and that was that.

I agree that it wouldn't have been ruled out had the referee allowed it. The process worked fine here, and it wasn't really anything to do with VAR. The problem is the on-field referee's being somewhere between wrong and harsh.

That said, we'd have been annoyed to have that goal allowed against us so it's horses for courses.

Yeah, I felt like this one was more a problem with the rules than the ref. If a similar thing happens at the half-way line, do I think a lot of refs will give a freekick? Yeah, I do. So I can't be too surprised when it's given against us. But it seems like a case where the rules are unclear and, as it often does, football cracks down on the wrong thing.

I mean, it's not a common occurence that a player gets injured because they stoop to waist height to head the ball, and to a large extent the "dangerous" play is the player lowering themselves down and not the one raising their foot. It's different to if Sharp's foot comes up to head height. Meanwhile, someone above mentioned bicycle kicks, which are blind and largely uncontrolled, but I don't think I've seen one ruled out even if a defender is close by. The other one is keepers punching the ball. For some reason, raising your foot above the waist can be seen as "dangerous" but when a keeper charges into a mass of players with a raised fist and absolutely clatters someone that's legitimate. And just going from my biased memory, I think I see that happen somewhat often.

So like I said, not sure this one is bad refereeing as much as a bad rule.

 

[blade too long]

we get all the shitty VAR calls
We had goals chalked out on more than 1 occasion for a player given offside for being in the keepers eyeline , but West Ham scored a winner with an offside forward jumping in front of the keeper

there are more inconsistancies now than ever

and some of the handballs given and not given vary wildly
those given when they are hit from behind beggar belief

 

[Gannon's perm]

we get all the shitty VAR calls
We had goals chalked out on more than 1 occasion for a player given offside for being in the keepers eyeline , but West Ham scored a winner with an offside forward jumping in front of the keeper

there are more inconsistancies now than ever

and some of the handballs given and not given vary wildly
those given when they are hit from behind beggar belief

Depends who's playing. If you're one of the big 6 or a London club ( not playing one of the big 6), you get all the soft pens for and none against.

Have no doubt that if Wolves had scored that, it would have stood without any issue.

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

If McGoldrick didn't have the finishing prowess of Devon Loch, it should've been so much worse for them.

Laughing, but I had to look it up first!

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Laughing, but I had to look it up first!

You can't kid a kidder

 

[Silent Blade]

Laughing, but I had to look it up first!

 

[Eddie odd legs]

Is there a way of stopping Mcgoaldrought from getting into "sitter" situations because his finishing is truly awful. Twice yesterday he had a opportunity to score ( 1 sitter & 1 good chance) & didn't look like troubling the goalie - in the sitter situation his reaction to the block by the goalie / defender was slothlike. We need somebody with his reading of the game to be on the end of his passes.