The disallowed 'goal'

[haich1889]

I also did think it was a bit of justification for VAR and its new transparency rather than actually giving the right decision. However I would have liked to hear/read the whole transcript from the moment the goal scored to the point of announcement by the ref. Not that it would change anything but why have the ref announce it doesnt make any difference to me whether he did or played charades (TV.... 3 words) show us the whole conversation not the edited highlight.

in rugby the ref watches the big screens around the ground & the fans get to see ass well. Totally transparent. If they watch 4 or 5 times & it's still not clear, on field decision stands. Not a little screen at pitch side.

 

[haich1889]

The problem with this idea is that it doesn’t take into account players’ ability. An international goalkeeper should in theory be able to save more than a League 2 keeper, and I don’t know how you legislate for that supposed difference.

For a keeper that had his vision blocked, he did well to dive the right way. Also another factor that made it hard to take. I don't recall the keeper or other players complaining or appealing???

 

[Jon B]

If our forwards had reacted as quickly as their defenders did in moving out of the 6 yard box we wouldn't need to be debating about whether anyone was interfering with play.

 

[Toto]

You lot like pain.......leave it....just a game of football

 

[Jon B]

You lot like pain.......leave it....just a game of football

You're tempting fate!

Much more of that and the ghost of Bill Shankly will hunt you down.

 

[Toto]

You're tempting fate!

Much more of that and the ghost of Bill Shankly will hunt you down.

John Harris maybe........let's hope

 

[Champagneblade]

Don't think that what the Law states. If you're saying Moore touched the ball and Souza was onside at that point then it's not offside. The issue seems to be that after Burrows shot, Souza moved towards the keeper thus interfering with him. However the Law does not say that. It clearly states the moment it is played or touch. At that point he was neither blocking the view or challenging and therefore is not offside. The Law is quite simple.

“At that point he was neither blocking the view or challenging and therefore is not offside.”

Key point for me.

In truth it would have caused far less controversy had it stood. The Sunderland players were not complaining. It was a poorly cleared corner that got slammed back into the area at pace that that keeper have a sight of when it was struck and got nowhere near even though he dived. If you asked him honestly I doubt he’d say he would have saved it anyway.

By intervening it has created far more controversy. As per the point, in what way was it clear and obvious?

The desire of the smart arses at the PGMOL to re-referee matches from Edgely Park rather than remove absolute howlers is what spoils the game.

If they want to be smart then bring AI in fully. Automated offside calls, when it comes to line of vision, draw your fancy lines to see if it was blocking the view.

Unfortunately they are too smart for their own good but not smart enough.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I hate var I think it slows the game down and steals moments from football which is what it's all about even controversial ones.

I can't see them not using it unfortunately. I would prefer a cricket style review system where a side has ten seconds and 2 unsuccessful reviews per game before losing them per game. It would cap it somewhat.

I think it would need to be less than 2 reviews but this is a good idea. Just 1 per game would be fine otherwise shite teams in tight games could contest a couple of goals and get away with it.

If refs and liners weren’t morons though it would make things much better.

This issue now is that refs are being brought into the PL knowing that they have a failsafe and can be shit and have a computer sweep up after them.

The more I think about the Championship, the more I'm gonna miss it. Just good, honest, tooth and nail football. No VAR, no dodgy Man Utd supporting refs, no overpaid wankers diving around on the floor.

It really is a great league to watch.

Ironically Man Utd are the team you need to catch next season to stay up. Better hope that all the refs can’t remember the glory days!

 

[Blade-on-Tyne]

The case that VAR is ruining the game was clearly demonstrated over the weekend.
Both ourselves and Villa had two perfectly good goals chalked off because of legalistic interpretation of what VAR can (and in Villa’s case can’t) do.
VAR should be restricted to ‘ball across the line’ decisions - like in tennis.
All the rest should be left to the referee and linos.

 

[dsr-burnley]

View attachment 211934
View attachment 211935

Richard Keys is being silly. If a ball is deflected and goes in because the keeper dives that way but too late, you wouldn't say the deflection made no difference because the keeper dived, would you?

There is certainly a chance that the Sunderland keeper lost a tenth of a second because of the player who may or may not be in his way. Diving a tenth of a second late may make all the difference. Whether it's offside or not can still be argued, but the fact that the keeper (eventually) dived in that direction is not a factor. (I reckon that the onside player - was it Moore? - was possibly the one who obstructed the keeper's view, but it's easy to see why the man in the offside position caused the officials to think he was interfering.)

Wouldn't it have saved all the argument if he had just run up the field with the defenders?

 

[Greenwich Blade]

Richard Keys is being silly. If a ball is deflected and goes in because the keeper dives that way but too late, you wouldn't say the deflection made no difference because the keeper dived, would you?

There is certainly a chance that the Sunderland keeper lost a tenth of a second because of the player who may or may not be in his way. Diving a tenth of a second late may make all the difference. Whether it's offside or not can still be argued, but the fact that the keeper (eventually) dived in that direction is not a factor. (I reckon that the onside player - was it Moore? - was possibly the one who obstructed the keeper's view, but it's easy to see why the man in the offside position caused the officials to think he was interfering.)

Wouldn't it have saved all the argument if he had just run up the field with the defenders?

You would get on well with my Uber driver from Saturday.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You would get on well with my Uber driver from Saturday.View attachment 211950

Yes, well I would definitely let the dust settle a bit. And I certainly don't agree that VAR on balance is good for the game, though if they would stop using it for "level" offsides and start using it do disallow "penalties" were the man has waited for a touch so he could dive, then I might accept it has a purpose.

 

[Champagneblade]

Richard Keys is being silly. If a ball is deflected and goes in because the keeper dives that way but too late, you wouldn't say the deflection made no difference because the keeper dived, would you?

There is certainly a chance that the Sunderland keeper lost a tenth of a second because of the player who may or may not be in his way. Diving a tenth of a second late may make all the difference. Whether it's offside or not can still be argued, but the fact that the keeper (eventually) dived in that direction is not a factor. (I reckon that the onside player - was it Moore? - was possibly the one who obstructed the keeper's view, but it's easy to see why the man in the offside position caused the officials to think he was interfering.)

Wouldn't it have saved all the argument if he had just run up the field with the defenders?

I think the fact that nobody can comment on this without needing three paragraphs shows how it isn’t clear and obvious!

Basically. They should have just kept their beak out. They conceded because they made a balls of clearing the corner and it rows sent it back with interest, not because Paterson failed to dive properly because Souza who was nowhere near his line of vision when it was struck, moved across a bit when Paterson was already mid dive and the ball was behind him!

 

[Working Class Hero]

The bottom line is that no Sunderland players even appealed, and had the goal stood there would be zero controversy.

That was not what VAR was brought in for, and it being used for such things is absolutely killing our sport.

 

[LBA_Blade]

I think the fact that nobody can comment on this without needing three paragraphs shows how it isn’t clear and obvious!

Basically. They should have just kept their beak out. They conceded because they made a balls of clearing the corner and it rows sent it back with interest, not because Paterson failed to dive properly because Souza who was nowhere near his line of vision when it was struck, moved across a bit when Paterson was already mid dive and the ball was behind him!

That's the problem with line of vision/interfering with play, when the ball was struck, Souza was about 3 yards to his left where the ball was going. If I was a keeper there is argument to say it was interfering with play and how far does the line of vision go are we talking peripheral vision too, as you might get distracted by that. Line of vision doesn't clear the law up neither does interfering with play. Although the goal would have been ruled out under the old Laws a simple, if you are offside you are offside approach would make things easier. On the flip side no offsides at all and just scrap Law 11 completely, it worked for (field) hockey.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That's the problem with line of vision/interfering with play, when the ball was struck, Souza was about 3 yards to his left where the ball was going. If I was a keeper there is argument to say it was interfering with play and how far does the line of vision go are we talking peripheral vision too, as you might get distracted by that. Line of vision doesn't clear the law up neither does interfering with play. Although the goal would have been ruled out under the old Laws a simple, if you are offside you are offside approach would make things easier. On the flip side no offsides at all and just scrap Law 11 completely, it worked for (field) hockey.

It really wouldn't. As it stands now, if Moore charges down the Sunderland goalkeeper who lumps it forward and a Sheffield U centre half nods the ball back to the Sheffield U goalkeeper, then Moore is not offside because he is not interfering. If that rule was abolished, then it would be a free kick against Sheffield U.

Abolishing the offside rule altogether is a more interesting situation, though the scrum a defending free kicks could be a problem.

 

[Jon B]

Abolishing the offside rule altogether is a more interesting situation, though the scrum a defending free kicks could be a problem.

Abolish it altogether?

That takes me back to playground football with a forward standing next to the goalie all game. No running around, just standing there ready to bundle the ball into goal from a couple of inches.

Technically known as a shitliner.

 

[jt64]

It is physically impossible most of the time for the linesman to look down the line & watch the kicker at the same time. He would need each eye looking in a different direction. Like Clarence the cross eyed lion.

Hence why they don't. The linesman who would call the offside is looking down the line. The other ref tells him in his ear when a pass is made.

 

[Colombia Blade]

Vini is stood in an offside position, but is he blocking Patterson's view of Burrows striking the ball? Did the referee/VAR team ever see it from this angle? (Sorry if this was already posted haven't read the whole thread)

 

[Tom Bott]

Former Premier League referee Keith Hackett has weighed in on the major VAR controversy from the Championship play-off final at Wembley, stating Sheffield United’s disallowed second goal against Sunderland should have been allowed to stand.



And he's a Wednesday fan.

 

[Northyorksblade]

We can debate the decision. But one thing..I've never celebrated so much when it went it. It was poor magical. Hugging strangers round me. Kiss my daughter. Shouting wtf is happening...we're gonna do it.

Then like Coife in Green Mile VAR socks all that joy from us all.

It's a bastard tool...whether it corrects the decision correctly. From ecstasy to agony.

It killed me emotionally. I won't lie it sacked the life out of me...and seemingly our players.

Don't ever put var in championship!

I didn't really celebrate as such. I stood with my hands on my head, a tear in my eye thinking, we've won. Silly me.

 

[KOPPO]

crapo VAR cheats it was a goal

 

[Jon B]

Pre VAR when we scored, before going joyously mental, I glanced over at the Ref and Linesman, if neither of them was doing anything to indicate a problem then I could safely go happily crackers.

Now, we stick the ball in the net and I celebrate ..... but not wildly ..... I don't know what VAR Big Brother thinks of it.

 

[CPB]

Vini is stood in an offside position, but is he blocking Patterson's view of Burrows striking the ball? Did the referee/VAR team ever see it from this angle? (Sorry if this was already posted haven't read the whole thread)

View attachment 212018

That's the angle he decided it on I believe.

VAR ask the ref to look. Ref decides when looking at the screen. (Which 99% if the time means they go with VARs question).

Ironically it's probably their defender blocking the line of sight more than vini.
BUT vini is close to the keeper so you can say interference with keeper. Despite him moving out of the way

It's not cut and dry. By the letter of all the laws it may be more offside due to confusing keeper. (Although line of sight was issued as the reason)

But simply put. Let's not have VAR for this match. Unless you implement it right the way through the season.

Watch them remove VAR for playoff finals next season.

 

[Rufus Smalls]

That's the angle he decided it on I believe.

VAR ask the ref to look. Ref decides when looking at the screen. (Which 99% if the time means they go with VARs question).

Ironically it's probably their defender blocking the line of sight more than vini.
BUT vini is close to the keeper so you can say interference with keeper. Despite him moving out of the way

It's not cut and dry. By the letter of all the laws it may be more offside due to confusing keeper. (Although line of sight was issued as the reason)

But simply put. Let's not have VAR for this match. Unless you implement it right the way through the season.

Watch them remove VAR for playoff finals next season.

Don’t think they will or they are admitting they dropped a bollock.

 

[CPB]

Don’t think they will or they are admitting they dropped a bollock.

No I don't. But it would be suitable blades irony.

 

[Trigger Blade]

Don’t think they will or they are admitting they dropped a bollock.

No, but if they did and we’re in the final, what’s the betting we get done by a decision where VAR would have saved us

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

The other incident the Burrows goal brought back to mind was from the 0-8 Newcastle fiasco. Obviously the result wasn’t affected, but it showed the absurdity of VAR. From memory, it was one of the goals into the Kop in the first half. Corner comes in from the left, volleyed towards goal, Newcastle player in offside position obstructs Wes’s view, but he does well to tip it over the bar. VAR can’t intervene, because it is only a corner. Newcastle do similar again, our defence again AWOL, nobody offside, goal. So if Wes had decided to leave the first shot, VAR would have given us a free kick, and we would not have conceded that goal. How stupid is that? A situation where the keeper would benefit from letting the ball go in the goal. There are too many of these bizarre scenarios, slowly killing the experience of the spectator.

 

[PotterLog]

Don't think that what the Law states. If you're saying Moore touched the ball and Souza was onside at that point then it's not offside. The issue seems to be that after Burrows shot, Souza moved towards the keeper thus interfering with him. However the Law does not say that. It clearly states the moment it is played or touch. At that point he was neither blocking the view or challenging and therefore is not offside. The Law is quite simple.

It is quite simple, but I'm afraid you're misreading it. In terms of whether the player is obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision, the section about the moment the ball is struck is totally irrelevant. Here's the wording, already posted further up:

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by [...] preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

The two factors are separate - the moment the ball is played, and the becoming involved in active play. The moment the ball is struck determines whether the player is in an offside position (which Souza was). But a player is only penalised on that by subsequently becoming involved in play, in this case by obstructing the goalie's line of vision (which Souza clearly did because he passed between the ball and the goalkeeper - I also don't think this is only hypothetical - you can perceive that the goalie hesitates slightly in his movement because Souza is standing literally right in front of him). It seems marginal and it's one they could easily have missed without VAR but it's categorically a correct offside decision.

I loves a laws discussion so I'm a bit disappointed I missed the opportunity to weigh in earlier on this, but there's my input anyway. Hard luck on your defeat, must have been a tough one to take.

 

[Bladepicker]

subsequently becoming involved in play, in this case by obstructing the goalie's line of vision (which Souza clearly did because he passed between the ball and the goalkeeper - I also don't think this is only hypothetical - you can perceive that the goalie hesitates slightly in his movement because Souza is standing literally right in front of him).

The law says though that it is only penalised if it clearly prevents the player from playing the ball. Given that Patterson could see the ball when it was struck and actually dived towards the ball that he had no chance of getting, I'd say it didn't.

Therefore even with Vini stepping across him it could easily have been given within the laws. It's not cut and dried, it is a subjective decision.