our rubbed out goal by VAR

[Greasy Chap Butty]

Clearly offside and more importantly correctly given under the laws.

Move on and stop clutching at the tiniest of straws.

Should have been given instantly really. Ideally by the linesman.

 

[Mouth of the South]

The correct call in law.

The rule was in fact changed prior to the start of the season to include the element of intent in order to address unclarity around the ball coming off a defender.

 

[Greenwich Blade]

He was offside. The fact it touched a defender while going to him makes no difference.
If the defender had played it back on purpose, he'd be fine.
It's common sense, and isn't a new rule.

If that's common sense, then I am Lord of the Manor. It really is a load of old fucking shit and I'm sick to the back teeth of it. Football can fuck off!

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

If that's common sense, then I am Lord of the Manor. It really is a load of old fucking shit and I'm sick to the back teeth of it. Football can fuck off!

Why? If you're stood in an offside position, it doesn't make it onside if it comes off an opposition players arse to you.

If you are stood between him and the goalie, and he backpass and you get it, that's fine.

That isn't new.

 

[Big Hitter]

Yawn zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Greenwich Blade]

Why? If you're stood in an offside position, it doesn't make it onside if it comes off an opposition players arse to you.

If you are stood between him and the goalie, and he backpass and you get it, that's fine.

That isn't new.

There was nothing "common sense" about the fiasco that was the VAR process for the goal. And according to Mouth of the South the whole "deliberate" thing was brought in at the start of this season, so that's new.

United being shit is not the only reason I'm not enjoying my football this season; the whole Premier League thing is bollocks.

 

[originaltrueblade]

He was offside. The fact it touched a defender while going to him makes no difference.
If the defender had played it back on purpose, he'd be fine.
It's common sense, and isn't a new ru

.

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

It’s all well and good the way they can justify the decisions in our game.

Next week it happens in Liverpool’s and they’ll be doing their best to convince the viewer the defender played it through and therefore he’s not offside, regardless of whether there was ‘intent’ or not.

When you talk of Liverpool, you realise how ridiculous it all is. We don’t get a goal because the player who is in the middle of the goal defending a corner didn’t mean to head it straight to Osborn. Meanwhile we wind back a bit and Liverpool get a penalty because Chris Morgan intended to foul (but actually didn’t foul) old squeaky voice.

At the same time Wes wasn’t impeded by the attacking player on the first goal whilst little Derek Geary was impeding when he was clattered by Rob Green, away at West Ham in that same 06/07 season.

You literally couldn’t make some or these things up if you tried!

Aye,
But….
It may be time to move on ….. (from 2006) ?

 

[Davalon]

Why did VAR intervene and tell the ref to view the monitor if it was as clear as you say? they must have had doubts.

Who knows but it was clear as explained on here probably most succinctly by Panini

 

[Greenwich Blade]

Aye,
But….
It may be time to move on ….. (from 2006) ?

Never forgive, never forget. Mike Riley's performance at West Ham is still the benchmark against which I judge all shit refereeing performances. It's not been beaten yet, although one or two have run him close.

 

[originaltrueblade]

top 6 side goal all day long BUT it’s Sheff Utd

VAR Conversation

Check hand ball bloody hell I can’t find any sign of a hand ball hang on let’s check these other frames fuck it I can’t find any hand ball, oh move on check the pushing and shoving there’s loads of pushing and shoving blimey most is from Green shirts FFS I know look at that short arse player Osborne got em lol lol lol lol he’s fucking offside lol lol WAIT oh no for fuck sake that stupid twat of a green shirted defender has headed it back in a defensive mode we gonna have to give it….phone rings .Ive just off the phone they are saying rule the goal offside as the header was not intentional and its Sheffield United so don’t worry no come back and remember this telephone conversation never happened ok. Conversation carried on after phone put down …they are saying the header was an accident we fucking got em tell the ref offside. If anyone argues book em or send em off. We’ll get this lot relegated today lol haha ha

 

[blade too long]

Of course the defender didn't mean for his header to go that way but how the fuck is it an accidental touch if he's jumped in the air to head it. All footballers never mean to make poor touches but they do. We make hundreds every game
.more than likely we'd have lost any way but its yet more too undecypherable interpretations open to varying opinions
I don't mean to fart in company but the odd one gets away

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Never forgive, never forget. Mike Riley's performance at West Ham is still the benchmark against which I judge all shit refereeing performances. It's not been beaten yet, although one or two have run him close.

Aye
Absolutely
Cheating cockney cunts

And I still despise Rodney Marsh for ‘doing’ Tom McAllister !

 

[Rochdaleblade]

I had a look at the football laws and it appears the decision was correct. I'm sure I've seen goals given when the ball has been deflected by a defender. It's another rule like 'what's handball' which is open to interpretation.

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

• passing the ball to a team-mate;
• gaining possession of the ball; or
• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited
  contact/control
• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the

It all is sufficiently vaguely worded so that any interpretation can be justified.

 

[ZoneManWilf]

Not that it matters in the context of this game, but I imagined the 'unintentional/deflected off a defender' portion of the law as it stands should only apply if the ball is originally going forward from a pass/header/shot from the attacking team.

eg. An attacking player has a shot, it deflects off a defender to another attacking player in an offside position, then it's clearly offside.

In this case Anel heads it forwards but then the ball goes backwards from I think one of our players before the Brighton player inadvertently heads it back towards goal. Just feels so counterintuitive to me watching a Brighton player head a ball that is going upfield backwards towards goal and somehow our player is deemed to be offside.

*Edit, rewatching it, Osborn is clearly off when Anel heads it and I think it initially comes off a defenders back before it's headed back to Osborn. So a bit complicated, but definitely offside.

 

[Champagneblade]

Aye,
But….
It may be time to move on ….. (from 2006) ?

Doc Pace never handled that ball either…

 

[ZoneManWilf]

I'd be interested to know if Anel's initial header had gone backwards away from goal and then headed back towards goal inadvertently by the Brighton player if that would have been offside. If so then it feels really weird to me.

 

[andy m]

We don't know if it would've been given as a foul because the offside takes precedence.

Offside isn't subjective. There's no reason why an offside decision should ever be wrong now.

But many fouls are subjective. If a foul is given, the ref/VAR will only consider overturning the decision if it's proven there was no contact.

VAR isn't there to review the ref's subjective decisions purely on the basis they could be viewed differently. That's the nature of subjectivity.

I can't think of one decision that was wrong yesterday. Certainly not any big ones.

Does that mean I like how things are done? Or course not.

But it's important to remind ourselves that we, as a sport, decided that 95% correct decisions wasn't good enough. VAR has taken that up to about 98%, but at enormous cost.

We have heavily subscribed TV channels hosting programmes and segments called "Ref Watch". All Match of the Day talk about is ref's decisions.

The idea this has all been inflicted upon us makes me cringe. We've got exactly what we deserved and demanded.

It was a subjective offside as the referee had to form an opinion as to whether the player was attempting to play the ball. So offsides can be subjective.

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

There was nothing "common sense" about the fiasco that was the VAR process for the goal. And according to Mouth of the South the whole "deliberate" thing was brought in at the start of this season, so that's new.

United being shit is not the only reason I'm not enjoying my football this season; the whole Premier League thing is bollocks.

I agree with the var farce. That is its own thing.
But he's a mile offside the linesman would have flagged it in the old days. I'd much rather us go back to that.

 

[PokerBlade]

Here's what the rule is supposed to do: it's supposed to make it so that if a player's miles offside, I attempt a pass to them, and it takes a touch off a defender trying to block the pass, that this doesn't become onside. Otherwise it would mean the defending team were penalised for trying to make a challenge and getting a slight touch.

Imagine that the ball had been headed back across the goal, but instead what happened is it cannoned off the defender challenging for the initial header and lands for Osborn. It would be blatantly offside.

It's just the murky line between the cases. I'd go with offside honestly, but my main thing is that it's a subjective decision and I'd be far happier without the farce of VAR and just go with the on-field decision like the olden days.

 

[PaddysMad]

It’s made the Premier League look fake it’s also corrupt to hinge end. It’s just given them control to get the outcome they want. We are always treated like shit when there.

 

[Bladesman]

It all is sufficiently vaguely worded so that any interpretation can be justified.

That's just how they like it.

I have no doubt at all that the goal would stand if that was Brighton scoring.

 

[Panini]

It was a subjective offside as the referee had to form an opinion as to whether the player was attempting to play the ball. So offsides can be subjective.

It might impact the offside decision, but that's not the offside decision itself.

Offside is black and white, just sometimes affected by things that aren't.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That's just how they like it.

I have no doubt at all that the goal would stand if that was Brighton scoring.

I think any conspiracy theories that the PL are cheating to ensure Sheffield United get relegated, should be disregarded. Just as any similar theories regarding my own team Burnley should be disregarded. They don't need to conspire to see we are both relegated, because we're both going to go down on our own merits.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Until the early 1970's, the goal would have been legal, because the rule was that a man in an offside position would (assuming he hadn't already interfered with play) be "play onside" when it touched a defender. This led to too many unfair goals when an offside player was played on by an accidental touch, so the whole "played on" rule was scrapped and the defender's touch made no difference.

Then the "what can we meddle with next" rules committee basically reintroduced the played on rule, and have tweaked it several times since, to get to the current position where if a defender has control of the ball and makes a deliberate pass, then any forward who would have been offside is now played onside. But a defender who doesn't have control of the ball and it bounces off him, does not play the forward onside.

 

[Moan? Nope-I saw Longhorn]

Doc Pace never handled that ball either…

Afore (even) my time although I’m more than content to be incandescent about (another) appalling injustice perpetrated by the corrupt powers that be agin SUFC

 

[blackydog]

Why would a defender deliberately pass the ball to an attacker in any situation ?

Feel sorry for us?

 

[Foody]

On the bright side the rule will surely benefit us soon, as very little of our defending appears to be deliberate.

 

[originaltrueblade]

Aye
Absolutely
Cheating cockney cunts

And I still despise Rodney Marsh for ‘doing’ Tom McAllister !

Tom would have been the best keeper in the world had that not happened IMHO

 

[JohnDenver]

Football shouldn't be so technical.

I'm getting bored of it all now.

This a million times over. They’re trying to halve their way all the way down to zero. It’s bobbins.