our rubbed out goal by VAR

[Digs blade]

Who’d have thought that 20, 30, 40 or 50 years ago that there would be such confusion to a rule that women used to be took the piss out of, to now even all us blokes (specialist matter been football) don’t have a fucking clue about on offside or handball or anything to do with the once beautiful game? It’s laughable to be honest, I’m at the stage of not giving 2 fucks if it was on or offside in any game, I honestly couldn’t give a shiny shit at the minute, they’re trying their hardest to make everything subjective so they can eventually make what ever decision they chose to.

This is just a general post by the way on the matter but I did think the incident in question was offside at the time but haven’t seen it back yet and I’m not arsed at seeing it back either.

Nailed it mate.

The fact that we all have different opinions says it all.

I said to the bloke next to me on Sunday whilst official gormless was stood staring at the screen for an eternity that I didn’t give a flying fuck whether he gave the goal or not.

The game that we all know and love has gone

 

[originaltrueblade]

I refuse to believe VAR could not have looked at that.

Totally agree

 

[Mattblade68]

So clear and obvious error??..
So VAR asked referee to look at his clear and obvious error of why he first disallowed the goal so that he could 'quickly' look at the replay and give the correct reason to look.to disallow the goal? If decision to disallow was correct why do we have to have the VAR to get him to correct the reason? Unless the reason was not clear and obvious , then VAR should have not asked him to look , as it is only for clear and obvious, which it clearly was not by the time he took .so , correct decision finally ? but the goal should have still stood as it was not clear and obvious, ref should have looked at and decided that his call of a foul was wrong but the fact he did not call offside was not a clear and obvious error as he could not decide quick enough on replay , so goal should wrongly or rightly stand, clear?

 

[Bell4]

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!

I have to agree

Imo - this rule is totally corrupt and so so subjective

Intent to pass to an opponent in an offside position - ffs -

The game has gone mad

The prem may as well be Mars …we have been self destructive but ffs - we had a goal disallowed twice on Sunday - the maddest moment I have ever witnessed

 

[Bell4]

This is from my Dad.

It was the 60/61 season and United got all the way to the FA Cup Semi final where they played Leicester City.

The first match finished 0-0 at Elland Road so they replayed at the City Ground where it also finished 0-0. Doc Pace had the ball in the net for what would have been the winner and the ref caller handball. However, according to my Dad, it was a muddy day and you could see the imprint of the ball on Pace’s shirt where he put the ball in with his chest/midriff.

United went on to lose the second reply 2-0 at St Andrews and Leicester were eventually beaten by Spurs in the final.

Maybe Silent Blade has more colour on this

Sadly no VAR to act in our favour back then!

There probably was VAR on that day

…..but they’re probably still checking it

 

[Bell4]

So clear and obvious error??..
So VAR asked referee to look at his clear and obvious error of why he first disallowed the goal so that he could 'quickly' look at the replay and give the correct reason to look.to disallow the goal? If decision to disallow was correct why do we have to have the VAR to get him to correct the reason? Unless the reason was not clear and obvious , then VAR should have not asked him to look , as it is only for clear and obvious, which it clearly was not by the time he took .so , correct decision finally ? but the goal should have still stood as it was not clear and obvious, ref should have looked at and decided that his call of a foul was wrong but the fact he did not call offside was not a clear and obvious error as he could not decide quick enough on replay , so goal should wrongly or rightly stand, clear?

F
U
C
K
I
N
G

M
A
D
N
E
S
S

 

[blade67]

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.

This.

I've seriously considered following my pre match routine, so off to the pub, talk through the team selection etc, then just go home and watch on the telly.

The only thing stopping me is the 3pm Saturday TV ban that makes it literally impossible to watch those games

 

[Panini]

So clear and obvious error??..
So VAR asked referee to look at his clear and obvious error of why he first disallowed the goal so that he could 'quickly' look at the replay and give the correct reason to look.to disallow the goal? If decision to disallow was correct why do we have to have the VAR to get him to correct the reason? Unless the reason was not clear and obvious , then VAR should have not asked him to look , as it is only for clear and obvious, which it clearly was not by the time he took .so , correct decision finally ? but the goal should have still stood as it was not clear and obvious, ref should have looked at and decided that his call of a foul was wrong but the fact he did not call offside was not a clear and obvious error as he could not decide quick enough on replay , so goal should wrongly or rightly stand, clear?

The decision not to give offside was clearly and obviously wrong.

Once it was determined that there was an offside offence, the original decision - a foul - didn't need checking because it didn't matter either way.

All goals are looked at. If the ref hadn't given a foul, the goal would still have been ruled out for offside.

 

[Grey Blade]

The decision not to give offside was clearly and obviously wrong.

Once it was determined that there was an offside offence, the original decision - a foul - didn't need checking because it didn't matter either way.

All goals are looked at. If the ref hadn't given a foul, the goal would still have been ruled out for offside.

I still don't understand why Atwell took so long looking at the screen before it was announced that they were checking for offside?

 

[jt64]

I still don't understand why Atwell took so long looking at the screen before it was announced that they were checking for offside?

They might get a direct rather than an indirect free kick and catch Wes off his line!

 

[Panini]

I still don't understand why Atwell took so long looking at the screen before it was announced that they were checking for offside?

I agree, the process is shit.

Maybe they were in the middle rocking and rolling the frames looking at the foul when the offside was spotted?

My guess is they were looking at the offside from the word go, as they normally would for a goal, but the original decision being a foul caused confusion and the delay was then caused by the complication of whether Buonanotte's touch was deliberate.

 

[Mattblade68]

Still trying to understand why ref took so long. There must have been lines drawn , so can only guess he was working out if the united header was forwards or backwards in the first instance. Or maybe trying to see if he could see if any chance he could stick with his foul call to save face, def not looking for any penalty offence for us…

 

[Mattblade68]

This is before it got headed. Keeper keeping Osborne at bay with jab…