Richard Keyes Is Correct

[MobileBlade]

The phase starts when the ball is volleyed by burrows it ends when the ball is cleared, goes out or goes into the back of the net

Souza interferes with the goalkeeper by distracting him and running across his line of vision. If it was wrong, you'd have everyone saying it was wrong I haven't seen one person say it was wrong who doesn't have Skin in the game

It is offside all day long, you think it's onside cause you're a blade

For the 7th time, there is no phases of play. You've been listening to some scouser too much. Read the Laws or just stop digging

 

[MobileBlade]

Unfortunately back foot in an offside position, the 2 things that could have allowed the goal was to either have been stationary in the goal between the goal posts or if he had made the run away from the keeper. Although the keeper was diving and still wouldn't have got near it there was a case to be heard

View attachment 211968

No one is doubting he was in off side position. Under Law 11 what was the offence?

 

[LBA_Blade]

No one is doubting he was in off side position. Under Law 11 what was the offence?

No one is doubting he was in off side position. Under Law 11 what was the offence?

Not sure what it was given for but imagine, preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision, ball is still going and Souza is quite clearly blocking the keepers view of the ball, he made the 1-2 yards run across the keeper in a few seconds that he didn't need to do.

 

[Balham]

No one is doubting he was in off side position. Under Law 11 what was the offence?

2. Offside offence

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 playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

It's a subjective application of this part of the Law. Souza is offside at the point the ball is kicked. He is then penalised as being involved when he runs across Patterson's eye line. My issue is with the word "clearly" as Souza doesn't do that.

The bottom line is that VAR shouldn't have got involved in that goal as it was a subjective application of the Law in an objective scenario. Souza is offside when Burrows shoots. However, Patterson is clearly demonstrated to have line of vision unobscured by anyone in an offside position at that point and given how well it was hit, he'd have had to have dived before the ball reached Souza to have had any chance of saving it.

Put it this way - had it been allowed, would there have been this level of uproar the other way? I somehow doubt it.

Not sure what it was given for but imagine, preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision, ball is still going and Souza is quite clearly blocking the keepers view of the ball, he made the 1-2 yards run across the keeper in a few seconds that he didn't need to do.

Souza isn't blocking Patterson's view of the ball, [the very much onside] Moore is. There's an argument that Moore may have got a faint touch on it too - obviously a factor not considered by those sitting in Stockley Park.

 

[LBA_Blade]

2. Offside offence

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 playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
• interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

It's a subjective application of this part of the Law. Souza is offside at the point the ball is kicked. He is then penalised as being involved when he runs across Patterson's eye line. My issue is with the word "clearly" as Souza doesn't do that.

The bottom line is that VAR shouldn't have got involved in that goal as it was a subjective application of the Law in an objective scenario. Souza is offside when Burrows shoots. However, Patterson is clearly demonstrated to have line of vision unobscured by anyone in an offside position at that point and given how well it was hit, he'd have had to have dived before the ball reached Souza to have had any chance of saving it.

Put it this way - had it been allowed, would there have been this level of uproar the other way? I somehow doubt it.


Souza isn't blocking Patterson's view of the ball, [the very much onside] Moore is. There's an argument that Moore may have got a faint touch on it too - obviously a factor not considered by those sitting in Stockley Park.

Can defo see the counterargument and don't get me wrong would have preferred it! The Laws of the game don't help as are too "grey" how to objectify line of vision and the word clearly doesn't help either. If Souza had stayed where he was or made the steps across their back 3 to the left of the screenshot, I don't think it would have been overturned. When the ball was played he is in "diving" reach of the shot of the keeper as stood about 3 yards away from him and level. That is the bit where how to objectify line of vision comes in etc

 

[dsr-burnley]

You can see from that photo that at some point Souza must have been between the ball and the goalkeeper. Therefore offside is at least a reasonable decision (even if there are arguments the other way) because inevitably he was blocking the keeper's view of the ball. The referee is not expected to take into account the ability of the goalkeeper to stop it.

 

[Balham]

You can see from that photo that at some point Souza must have been between the ball and the goalkeeper. Therefore offside is at least a reasonable decision (even if there are arguments the other way) because inevitably he was blocking the keeper's view of the ball. The referee is not expected to take into account the ability of the goalkeeper to stop it.

The Law directly contradicts you...
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball"

 

[Frank the tank]

The chronic self pity on here is off the scale

Take a good look at the team after that initial 10-15. Right off it, felt sorry for themselves, weren't up for it and Wilder didn't/ couldn't change it up

It's almost as if all the positive talk about culture is just hot air and deflection

Look beyond the words and ego stroking and just concentrate on what we saw and the behaviours

That's who they are

So we all saw what we wanted to see but you saw the truth

Lucky we've got you to put us straight

 

[LBA_Blade]

The Law directly contradicts you...
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball"

Agreed although it doesn't help that Souza is facing the keeper, if he is looking like he is making a run outwards and does so, there is no doubt then that he was in the way and the goal would have been given.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The Law directly contradicts you...
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball"

"Being able to play the ball" does not relate to his technical ability!

 

[peakblade]

That isn't the law, if an offside player interferes with the play during that phase of play it's offside

should be against the law to play in a rust bucket though

 

[54yrblade]

So we all saw what we wanted to see but you saw the truth

Lucky we've got you to put us straight

Not good enough. The rest is just noise and deflection.

 

[Frank the tank]

Not good enough. The rest is just noise and deflection.

You have very high standards

Just for context where were United when you started watching them (league position wise )

 

[54yrblade]

You have very high standards

Just for context where were United when you started watching them (league position wise )

First game November 1971.
We finished 10th that year in the old First division. ST for years, home and away by the 100's, pre season friendlies, endless big game defeats, First Div to Div 4 (the best year funnily enough) and back again.
You're right, I do have high standards. Without that, and with accepting failure, nothing changes.

Yourself?

 

[Frank the tank]

First game November 1971.
We finished 10th that year in the old First division. ST for years, home and away by the 100's, pre season friendlies, endless big game defeats, First Div to Div 4 (the best year funnily enough) and back again.
You're right, I do have high standards. Without that, and with accepting failure, nothing changes.

Yourself?

You went to.your first game at one years old ?

Fucking hard core man ,did you have a season ticket or jump over the turnstile in your stroller. ?

 

[bakeblade]

Sunderland went to the last kick

We didn't

Got what we deserved

Not good enough. Again

The footballing gods surpassed themselves.
Dodgy VAR decision
Conceded a very good goal and a worldie
Our defender head butted by his own player, putting us down to 10 when they scored the winner

 

[54yrblade]

The footballing gods surpassed themselves.
Dodgy VAR decision
Conceded a very good goal and a worldie
Our defender head butted by his own player, putting us down to 10 when they scored the winner

All accepted but we weren't fit enough, committed enough or prepared to go 90+

 

[Gin&Juice]

Richard Keys is a top class operator and a sorely missed figure on British television screens.

He is absolutely right, and has been on the money around the farcical nature of VAR before. Richard Masters has blood on his hands.

Thank you Richard for beinging us a whole new ball game. It’s a shame as to what it’s become.

 

[54yrblade]

You went to.your first game at one years old ?

Fucking hard core man ,did you have a season ticket or jump over the turnstile in your stroller. ?

I was seven. In the days when, occasionally, we'd be lifted over the turnstile to get in.
My son was 18 months old when he first went. On the Kop. That's hardcore.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I was seven. In the days when, occasionally, we'd be lifted over the turnstile to get in.
My son was 18 months old when he first went. On the Kop. That's hardcore.

"Hardcore" is the child mascot at Keighley Cougars one Good Friday. He was celebrating (a) his first birthday and (b) the first anniversary of his first game at Cougar Park. His parents took him to the rugby game on the day he was born, before they took him home.

 

[bone ayy]

The law it was disallowed for is this one, a player who is in an offside when the ball is struck is deemed to be offside if he becomes active and:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The referee deemed the keeper had clearly had his line of vision obstructed by Souza which prevented him from being able to play the ball.

The fact that Souza did not block his vision when the ball was hit and didn't prevent his ability to play the ball as he fucking dived for it means it should have been allowed in my opinion. It's a subjective decision that could have gone either way, as usual it went the wrong way for us.

Fuck VAR.

so if a player on the attacking side was stood halfway in the opponents half by himself offside and a corner at the other end results in a long high ball kicked up the field to the keeper who is on the edge of his box, but said attacking player manages to get to the keeper enough to get in his view so the keeper cannot see where the ball will bounce and its in the net. ... he was nowhere near him when the ball was kicked but would you still count the goal? doubt you would. get over it

 

[Houston_Blade]

"Hardcore" is the child mascot at Keighley Cougars one Good Friday. He was celebrating (a) his first birthday and (b) the first anniversary of his first game at Cougar Park. His parents took him to the rugby game on the day he was born, before they took him home.

That’s not hardcore, it’s shit parenting.

 

[Bladepicker]

so if a player on the attacking side was stood halfway in the opponents half by himself offside and a corner at the other end results in a long high ball kicked up the field to the keeper who is on the edge of his box, but said attacking player manages to get to the keeper enough to get in his view so the keeper cannot see where the ball will bounce and its in the net. ... he was nowhere near him when the ball was kicked but would you still count the goal? doubt you would. get over it

I'm not getting over anything. I'm just pointing out that those who say it was cut and dried offside due to the laws of the game are wrong. The goal could easily have been allowed within the laws of it is deemed that even if Vini was in the keepers eyeline, it didn't impede on him or his ability to play the ball. It's subjective. It could easily have been given.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I'm not getting over anything. I'm just pointing out that those who say it was cut and dried offside due to the laws of the game are wrong. The goal could easily have been allowed within the laws of it is deemed that even if Vini was in the keepers eyeline, it didn't impede on him or his ability to play the ball. It's subjective. It could easily have been given.

It could have been given - but from the goalkeeper's point of view, the ball started on Souza's right side, passed behind him and finished on Souza's left side. It would (certainly with VAR) generally be disallowed.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That’s not hardcore, it’s [deleted] parenting.

Did the child suffer? If the hospital is content to send newborns home on the day they are born, then can we really criticise the professionals?

 

[Tony_Kaufman]

For me realistically there is no way Vini was impeding the keeper's view of the shot. It was struck ridiculously clean with so much power and speed and made it's way through a crowd of bodies. If the keeper could see that then he's Clark Kent!!! No goalkeeper on Earth would've saved that shot, even if they had clean sight of it. It was an unstoppable shot, plain and simple.

 

[MiserableBlader]

We were ROBBED

‘There’s No Way’ – Richard Keys Says Sheffield United Robbed Of Win Over Sunderland

Richard Keys believes that Sheffield United should have won the Championship playoff final against Sunderland.

insidefutbol.com

Quite right.
The player who blocked the keepers vision, who prevented him diving in case of deflection was 6'5" Keifer Moore who ducked under the ball, not deflecting it and he was 10 yards onside with perhaps 10 Sunderland players level or behind.
Few hate Wilder more than me (perhaps) but this was one thing - like the high tempo attacking start - that was NOT his fault.
The defeat and negativity that caused it 100% is
WILDER OUT

 

[sjl]

I've just took a look at it now ( didnt have the heart to view it until now). Seen the view from behind the net similar to what the goalkeeper would see and to me its Keiffer Moore who is in his line of vision not Souza. Moore ducks and that's when you see the ball. But Moore is onside.

If he’s not involved in that passage of play, then why was he there? It’s not just the line, it’s the movement, the intent or threat offered by him being there and so on.; He is simply offside.

 

[Tom Bott]

It is offside all day long, you think it's onside cause you're a blade

But Keith Hackett is a Wednesday fan.....

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/football/sunderland-afc/efl-keith-hackett-referee-drama-sunderland-var-sheffield-united-championship-5146039

Though what does he know regarding the rules of the game.

 

[WayneAllison]

But Keith Hackett is a Wednesday fan.....

https://www.sunderlandecho.com/sport/football/sunderland-afc/efl-keith-hackett-referee-drama-sunderland-var-sheffield-united-championship-5146039

Though what does he know regarding the rules of the game.

Keith Hackett has an Agenda against the PGMOL and modern football; everything he says is contrary to how modern ref referee games