Disallowed Goal

[originaltrueblade]

Remember who the ref was Paul Tierney VAR man at Villa Park who after Michael Oliver said his watch never bleeped and the VAR man Tierney said the system wasn’t on

Reference the season changer relegation issues Villa would have gone down had the goal been given

Shocking

 

[Trigger Blade]

Remember who the ref was Paul Tierney VAR man at Villa Park who after Michael Oliver said his watch never bleeped and the VAR man Tierney said the system wasn’t on

Reference the season changer relegation issues Villa would have gone down had the goal been given

Shocking

My memory of it wasn’t that the system wasn’t on, they said that for the first time in 9,000 games, there was an occlusion that meant Tierney couldn’t make a judgement using the Hawkeye system.

 

[Belvedere Blade]

Sheffield United ace Sharp 'dangerous' as Wolves footage analysed

Football Insider has been told by Keith Hackett his verdict on a Billy Sharp's disallowed goal as Sheffield United lost 3-0 to Wolves.

www.footballinsider247.com

 

[Silent Blade]

Sheffield United ace Sharp 'dangerous' as Wolves footage analysed

Football Insider has been told by Keith Hackett his verdict on a Billy Sharp's disallowed goal as Sheffield United lost 3-0 to Wolves.

www.footballinsider247.com

He is a Wendy fan

 

[Toronto Blade]

Even with a high boot that defender would not have got the ball. He made a meal of it putting his hand on the side of his face as though checking for blood ,the ref just made a hash of it.

 

[Booker4]

Anyone know what the actual rule says on this sort of thing? If the rule is above waist height, as Keith Hackett has drawn the line at, fair enough, but I bet this is a case of each case is taken on it's merits, partly because of differing heights of players! If it's on the basis of dangerous play, I'd say that this is definitely not dangerous, or more to the point, the ball at the height Billy hit it was there to be finished by foot or head in my view. If Billy had hooked it over the players head and it looped in without hitting the player would it have been cancelled out? I very much doubt it and Keith Hackett has said it's not regarding contact it's about the height of Billy's foot, 5.8ft tall Billy Sharp!

You see many clashes of a serious nature with clashes of heads more than boots in faces, you could stoop for a ball at waist height or just over, and then someone's boot collide then, that would be chalked off also, presumably?

 

[COME BACK CHED]

I watched this in 1980s frame by frame porno mode verdict , fair goal

 

[Karaoke Blade]

Sheffield United ace Sharp 'dangerous' as Wolves footage analysed

Football Insider has been told by Keith Hackett his verdict on a Billy Sharp's disallowed goal as Sheffield United lost 3-0 to Wolves.

www.footballinsider247.com

I look forward to the next Arsenal/Chelsea/Man Ure/Man City (delete as appropriate) overhead worldy being disallowed then.

Edit: add Newcastle to the list

 

[Ecco1889]

Doesn’t look great from this angle tbh

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

Doesn’t look great from this angle tbh
View attachment 127805

Still got his head hasn't he - what's the problem?

 

[Toronto Blade]

Well they are going to have to ban any overhead bicycle kick then.

 

[CornwallBlade]

….because football is bent as fuck.

This. I never really bought into the idea that on field refs were bent, just susceptible to pressure on big decisions at the home games of big clubs. VAR however is a different matter. Look at the Villa disallowed goal tonight. Absolutely shocking decision- they spent 4 minutes trying to find a reason to rule it out. If running into a defender and them falling over is a foul, we might as well do away with corner kicks all together- absolute shambles.

 

[Guesty]

My memory of it wasn’t that the system wasn’t on, they said that for the first time in 9,000 games, there was an occlusion that meant Tierney couldn’t make a judgement using the Hawkeye system.

That's what they said. They lied.

 

[Champagneblade]

The way that Villa thing played out was absurd.

The fact the ref and VAR didn't just trust their eyes, use pitch side monitor or just one run through of VAR and award the goal was obscene.

It may we'll have given us a totally different momentum going into Newcastle away.

 

[Balham]

My memory of it wasn’t that the system wasn’t on, they said that for the first time in 9,000 games, there was an occlusion that meant Tierney couldn’t make a judgement using the Hawkeye system.

The Hawkeye system failed to alert the referee. We can speculate the reasons why but the real failing was VAR not correcting the 'clear and obvious error'. I think there was a statement to the effect that by the time VAR realised that the mistake had been made the game had restarted and therefore they couldn't go back.

 

[Rudders]

The Hawkeye system failed to alert the referee. We can speculate the reasons why but the real failing was VAR not correcting the 'clear and obvious error'. I think there was a statement to the effect that by the time VAR realised that the mistake had been made the game had restarted and therefore they couldn't go back.

Everything they (the authorities involved) have said relating to this event would seem to have been lies, distraction or just plain old backside covering BS!
The most probable explanation is:

• human failure (ref didnt check it (goalline detection system) was turned on - it was actually turned off)
• other inept humans make mistakes to cover up for their colleague's ineptitude/mistake to save his job (VAR team)
• technology company has to come out with some never to be proven waffle about occlusion/technical issue to try and blame the tech instead of the people involved. No pictures have ever been released of the 'occlusion'. Because it didn't happen.

 

[Stu_Blade]

Anyone know what the actual rule says on this sort of thing? If the rule is above waist height, as Keith Hackett has drawn the line at, fair enough, but I bet this is a case of each case is taken on it's merits, partly because of differing heights of players! If it's on the basis of dangerous play, I'd say that this is definitely not dangerous, or more to the point, the ball at the height Billy hit it was there to be finished by foot or head in my view. If Billy had hooked it over the players head and it looped in without hitting the player would it have been cancelled out? I very much doubt it and Keith Hackett has said it's not regarding contact it's about the height of Billy's foot, 5.8ft tall Billy Sharp!

You see many clashes of a serious nature with clashes of heads more than boots in faces, you could stoop for a ball at waist height or just over, and then someone's boot collide then, that would be chalked off also, presumably?

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

In theory the only law that it could be ruled out was that the referee thought Billy attempted to kick his opponent and was careless as he showed a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. I personally think the goal should have stood, the defender has charged at Billy in a careless way too.

 

[Sheff de party]

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

In theory the only law that it could be ruled out was that the referee thought Billy attempted to kick his opponent and was careless as he showed a lack of attention or consideration when making a challenge or acts without precaution. I personally think the goal should have stood, the defender has charged at Billy in a careless way too.

“Plays in a dangerous manner.”

I wouldn’t have disallowed it but I can easily see why it was. Marginal call. Just glad it was in a game where it made no difference (I know it was finely poised but they were far better than us)

 

[Sheff de party]

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.

Must we persist with these playground nicknames for players, particularly those players who’ve been among our best since they signed?

So his finishing isn’t very good. We know that. He still gets picked and leaves £50m+ of strikers on the bench, all of whom are considerably younger than him.

It’s because the team is far better with him in it. If he could finish like Billy, he’d be playing for someone a lot better than us.

He is arguably better as an attacking midfielder though, which I think is the point you’re making.

 

[Wapping Blade]

Anyone see the one at Bournemouth today? Surely a calibration error but no “thecsystem
Is always right” - bollox.