our rubbed out goal by VAR

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

blade too long

blade too long

weve come home
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
30,083
Reaction score
34,098
Location
cabo roig spain
I must admit to the offside rule that denied our goal near halftime seems flawed
Osborn was in an offside position but this was nullified by it coming off a Brighton head
but the commentator said he didnt mean to mishead it so it was given as offside

Got me thinking who decides that , whether a defender meant it as that would mean an argument for overturning every own goal ever scored surely , as the defender doesnt mean to score an own goal
Im sure the 2 we scored for Luton were accidental
So I thought it was the rule if its diverted by a defender the attacker cant be offside

or is it just for certain teams, Im pretty damn sure weve had players deemed onside as it touched our defender last

its like the handbal unnatural position nonsense, how any hand ball can be given when struck from behind is given
surely thats not meant either

they are making rules more confusing instead of making things black and white
 

I was quite clear but now I’m confused.

Osborn was in an offside position when the header gets made.

Someone pointed out to me that the header was across goal rather than towards goal.

As such surely then the offside, which I thought was the initial reason, doesn’t get triggered.

Then it is the hitting of their man which propels the ball forwards which then finds Osborn offside.

Because he didn’t mean to play the ball, then this doesn’t count as him effectively playing the ball through intentionally like a back pass.

This seems rather counterintuitive. It’s only the action of the defender which triggers Osborn to be able to be engaged in the game, yet because he’s subjectively decided to have not played the ball, he’s then not culpable for what is effectively a back pass that would otherwise allow for a goal to be given.

Seems like such a load of horseshit to me.

Not like it just brushed him, his body deflected it significantly into Osborne’s path and if he wasn’t there to defend the corner intentionally, what the fuck was he doing there?

Let’s not forget that these are the same twats who decided not long ago that Marcus Rashford bearing down on the middle of the goal was not interfering with play!
 
It’s deflected off a defender so still counts as our phase, therefore offside. If the defender moves towards the ball at any point in that micro second it could be seen as being actionable that they’re trying to play it, and the goal probably stands, but it’s a clear mistake / deflection.

I don’t think there’s some underlying conspiracy against us, we had a low chance of winning with 11 and then it became impossible with 10.
 
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
 
The rule is clear. But as blade too long states… who decides…?

If it is deliberately headed on, it’s onside
If it’s accidental, it’s offside

The fact that the defender didn’t really have a clue or much choice about where he headed it makes it fairly certain that it’s accidental. So annoyingly it’s correctly called offside.

But by way of comparison, two handballs last week, both accidental and both pens.

So perhaps the rule needs clearing up… make any touch off an opposition player an onside.

The game has been over complicated over the last decade or two. It doesn’t enhance the game.

VAR once again delays the game. The ref had ruled out the goal. His reason was wrong as he seemed to blow for a foul not an offside, but the decision to rule the goal out was correct. So he didn’t actually need VAR
 
SwissBlade said:
The rule is clear. But as blade too long states… who decides…?

If it is deliberately headed on, it’s onside
If it’s accidental, it’s offside

The fact that the defender didn’t really have a clue or much choice about where he headed it makes it fairly certain that it’s accidental. So annoyingly it’s correctly called offside.

But by way of comparison, two handballs last week, both accidental and both pens.

So perhaps the rule needs clearing up… make any touch off an opposition player an onside.

The game has been over complicated over the last decade or two. It doesn’t enhance the game.

VAR once again delays the game. The ref had ruled out the goal. His reason was wrong as he seemed to blow for a foul not an offside, but the decision to rule the goal out was correct. So he didn’t actually need VAR
Click to expand...
I read Dale Johnson from ESPN, who reviews the calls weekly and despite the fact he’s a Wednesdayite by all accounts, he did state that the Souza decisions should not have been given and the ref should have ignored the VAR prompting. He suggested that because he’d given one earlier he may have been swayed, which is absolutely not what should be expected from Refs at the top level.
 
I didn't realise we'd had a goal disallowed until today 😂 Very glad I missed it because I was annoyed/despairing/upset enough.

I do wish they'd either (a) change VAR to an appeal basis, like Tennis. It would cut out the majority of the bullshit like searching for problems. (b) Only use VAR for VERY CLEAR and obvious errors, within 20/30 seconds maximum. Not subjective decisions.
 
mattbianco1 said:
Why would a defender deliberately pass the ball to an attacker in any situation ? 🤣
Click to expand...
Like the whole deliberate handball notion, which may have been removed now.

Who the hell deliberately gives a penalty away unless you’re Suarez in the knockouts of the World Cup and you’re preventing a certain goal?
 
Champagneblade said:
Like the whole deliberate handball notion, which may have been removed now.

Who the hell deliberately gives a penalty away unless you’re Suarez in the knockouts of the World Cup and you’re preventing a certain goal?
Click to expand...
TBF there's always an occasional instinctive handball. Usually desperate, often just a moment of madness. Human nature, a millisecond of losing your head.

But they're obvious.

The rules are embarrassingly shit and it's insane what a mess they've made of offside and handball. It's really not that hard.

EDIT: There'll always be decisions people disagree with. But hopefully they would stop being endlessly analysed in TV studios.
 

VAR is the problem for me. The onfield officials had ruled it out. Right or wrong bloody move on. Why do we have this interminable wait all the time it’s destroying the game? I was broadly in favour when it came in but it’s now rerefereeing the game which it always said it wouldn’t. It was supposed to do away with the arguments in pubs and online after games where to me it seems worse now than it was before. I’m not a bleeding heart for officials but it can’t be easy for them surely having a big brother individual looking over their shoulder all the time. We all moaned about officials for years now we have this.
VAR is most definitely a be careful what you wish for situation.
 
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!
 
A lad in front of me was sent screen grabs from the sky coverage to explain what was going on. Seems you are at a disadvantage these days if you’re actually at the game and need to be watching at home to get the full match day experience.
 
Davalon said:
Clearly offside and more importantly correctly given under the laws.

Move on and stop clutching at the tiniest of straws.
Click to expand...
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.
 
I think some fans are tying themselves in knots over this.

Any touch by a defending side during an attack against them is either 1) deliberate or 2) not deliberate aka "a deflection".

The phase of play that matters when it comes to awarding the goal or not starts from the last deliberate touch.

So if the Brighton defender was deemed to be heading it back to his keeper, Osborn is not offside and therefore the goal would stand.

As the touch was not deemed deliberate, aka "a deflection", the phase of play is considered to have started with the most recent deliberate touch. That was our man heading it down. Osborn was in an offside position when that happened, so it's offside.
 
Champagneblade said:
I was quite clear but now I’m confused.

Osborn was in an offside position when the header gets made.

Someone pointed out to me that the header was across goal rather than towards goal.

As such surely then the offside, which I thought was the initial reason, doesn’t get triggered.

Then it is the hitting of their man which propels the ball forwards which then finds Osborn offside.

Because he didn’t mean to play the ball, then this doesn’t count as him effectively playing the ball through intentionally like a back pass.

This seems rather counterintuitive. It’s only the action of the defender which triggers Osborn to be able to be engaged in the game, yet because he’s subjectively decided to have not played the ball, he’s then not culpable for what is effectively a back pass that would otherwise allow for a goal to be given.

Seems like such a load of horseshit to me.

Not like it just brushed him, his body deflected it significantly into Osborne’s path and if he wasn’t there to defend the corner intentionally, what the fuck was he doing there?

Let’s not forget that these are the same twats who decided not long ago that Marcus Rashford bearing down on the middle of the goal was not interfering with play!
Click to expand...

SwissBlade said:
The rule is clear. But as blade too long states… who decides…?

If it is deliberately headed on, it’s onside
If it’s accidental, it’s offside

The fact that the defender didn’t really have a clue or much choice about where he headed it makes it fairly certain that it’s accidental. So annoyingly it’s correctly called offside.

But by way of comparison, two handballs last week, both accidental and both pens.

So perhaps the rule needs clearing up… make any touch off an opposition player an onside.

The game has been over complicated over the last decade or two. It doesn’t enhance the game.

VAR once again delays the game. The ref had ruled out the goal. His reason was wrong as he seemed to blow for a foul not an offside, but the decision to rule the goal out was correct. So he didn’t actually need VAR
Click to expand...

Aycliffe Blade said:
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.
Click to expand...
I understood that the referee initially disallowed the goal for a foul.

As every goal is checked, VAR noticed the possible offside.

So that took priority. Once offside was established, the foul became irrelevant.
 
Panini said:
I understood that the referee initially disallowed the goal for a foul.

As every goal is checked, VAR noticed the possible offside.

So that took priority. Once offside was established, the foul became irrelevant.
Click to expand...
If that’s a foul, then so is their first.

It would have been soft as shit to call it for a foul.
 
Bergen Blade said:
Did Anel get a touch? In that case Osborn was probably offside as he helped it in?
Click to expand...
That's gone now Bergen ! Just wondering what your opinion of building a team for a crack at the championship next season
taking on board positives from the ruins of a season where anything that could go wrong has gone wrong.
Don't think the squad is as dire as our position suggests.
Being able to revue the squad with so many contracts terminating must be a help although the prince really thought it would get more out of the players allowing this to happen.
The young players coming through is good but they won't get us back up without much support from experienced players we keep + plus of course any we sign.
 
as starter was saying ive no idea what offside is. because i thought you couldnt be offside if the opposition touched it last. but then ive only just figured out the handball rule after 6 yrs 😄
 
Champagneblade said:
If that’s a foul, then so is their first.

It would have been soft as shit to call it for a foul.
Click to expand...
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.
 
brownblade said:
I didn't realise we'd had a goal disallowed until today 😂 Very glad I missed it because I was annoyed/despairing/upset enough.

I do wish they'd either (a) change VAR to an appeal basis, like Tennis. It would cut out the majority of the bullshit like searching for problems. (b) Only use VAR for VERY CLEAR and obvious errors, within 20/30 seconds maximum. Not subjective decisions.
Click to expand...

I see this suggestion a lot but I really don't see how an appeals system can work in football.

When can the team appeal? If you say they can appeal the next time the ball goes out of play then what happens if the ball doesn't go out for 5 minutes and the other team score or if there's a red card etc within that time? You could say a team can appeal once a half and the ref will stop the game but teams will just start using them tactically to stop counter attacks.
 
brownblade said:
There'll always be decisions people disagree with. But hopefully they would stop being endlessly analysed in TV studios.
Click to expand...
Is it not the endless TV analysis that enabled and led to VAR being introduced. I think when I first watched football the only live TV coverage was of the FA Cup Final and there were minimal action replays. Once they brought in slow motion angle replays (from multiple angles) it called into question many refereeing decisions and undermined their authority. They had to do something about it so I think we're stuck with it - with the proviso that a lot of fine tuning is required.
 

Offside all day long, but it could have been disallowed for a number of reasons. Anel climbing over their player to head the ball, or a Souza hand ball as he jumps with the defender as it happens the ball deflects off the defender's shoulder/ head/ Souza' arm and it falls to Osborn who is clearly offside. If team scored a goal like that against us we'd be mortified, what we have here is fans clutching at straws. No problems with any Referee decisions yesterday they were all spot on for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?

Back
Top Bottom