Richard Keyes Is Correct

[originaltrueblade]

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

 

[WayneAllison]

I struggle to understand how an offside goal been correctly been chalked off for offside is a robbery

 

[Montymagic]

I struggle to understand how an offside goal been correctly been chalked off for offside is a robbery

It got chalked off because the keeper apparently had his line of sight blocked???

 

[ben1987]

Seen it back a couple of times and I don’t think he’s actually impeding the goalkeeper all that much. Hes trying to move away.

I think it’s harsh and unlucky. It lifted them from silent and shellshocked to bouncing as if they’d just scored and swung the whole tie.

Honestly believe if the goal stood we would’ve won that 3-0

 

[WayneAllison]

It got chalked off because the keeper apparently had his line of sight blocked???

It got chalked off because 6ft 4 Vini Souza ran across his eye line as he was about to dive for it


It doesn’t matter if he would have saved it


Dems the rules

 

[Railway Blade]

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.

 

[MartBlade]

It got chalked off because 6ft 4 Vini Souza ran across his eye line as he was about to dive for it


It doesn’t matter if he would have saved it


Dems the rules

The problem is that those rules seem to get interpreted differently - particularly by VAR reviews. I’ve seen a lot of PL goals this season where a shot is taken and the ball goes in whilst players are standing in offside positions. Often those goals are given because the offside players are deemed to not be interfering. Personally I’d argue that if a player is anywhere in the keepers field of vision then he is interfering… however…. current interpretation seems to be “does the offside player make a difference to the outcome?”
My view is that neither of our players make a jot of difference because the keeper dives immediately and the ball is nestling in the back of the net before he even reaches the ground. Therefore neither player made any difference to the outcome.
Unfortunately this is yet another example of how the twisted and ever changing rules are creating more and more confusion … just to enable VAR which tv loves but fans detest.

 

[Hockey'sBeard]

The problem is that those rules seem to get interpreted differently - particularly by VAR reviews. I’ve seen a lot of PL goals this season where a shot is taken and the ball goes in whilst players are standing in offside positions. Often those goals are given because the offside players are deemed to not be interfering. Personally I’d argue that if a player is anywhere in the keepers field of vision then he is interfering… however…. current interpretation seems to be “does the offside player make a difference to the outcome?”
My view is that neither of our players make a jot of difference because the keeper dives immediately and the ball is nestling in the back of the net before he even reaches the ground. Therefore neither player made any difference to the outcome.
Unfortunately this is yet another example of how the twisted and ever changing rules are creating more and more confusion … just to enable VAR which tv loves but fans detest.

Not sure tv viewers love it either. Better to discuss a debatable referee decision for tv

 

[OLDBLADE43]

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.

Absolutely spot on.

 

[Edgar Allan Poo]

Not got an issue with thr VAR review as such more an issue of whether only one Championship game should have VAR.

 

[HighfieldBlade]

I was more baffled that VAR was used in an EFL game

 

[Booker4]

Am I the only one who just can't be bothered debating this anymore?!

 

[b1ade4life]

Am I the only one who just can't be bothered debating this anymore?!

I reckon another 10 threads on the subject then that'll be me done

 

[MobileBlade]

It got chalked off because 6ft 4 Vini Souza ran across his eye line as he was about to dive for it


It doesn’t matter if he would have saved it


Dems the rules

No they're not

 

[WayneAllison]

No they're not

What are they then

 

[MobileBlade]

What are they then

I quoted Law 11 in the other thread. To be interfering with an opponent the player AT THE POINT THE BALL IS PLAYED OR TOUCHED, has to be in the direct sight line or challenging. Vini was doing neither. If the ball had come to Vini and he touched it then a different part of the Law comes into play. So many people, including some who should know better, don't appear to know the Law.

 

[WayneAllison]

I quoted Law 11 in the other thread. To be interfering with an opponent the player AT THE POINT THE BALL IS PLAYED OR TOUCHED, has to be in the direct sight line or challenging. Vini was doing neither. If the ball had come to Vini and he touched it then a different part of the Law comes into play. So many people, including some who should know better, don't appear to know the Law.

That’s is 1000% not the law

It has nothing to do with when the ball is played it’s to do with phases of play it’s the same phase of play so he is offside

 

[Bell4]

Am I the only one who just can't be bothered debating this anymore?!

No

 

[General Jase]

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.

Agree totally, but if you look at Vini he purposely (I'd say) runs to his right straight in front of the keeper, almost forward, sharp right (from memory as I've not been able to watch again ), so blocks and becomes active. If he'd have moved out to the left I think it wouldn't have been ruled out. Either way don't believe he would have saved it but hey ho

 

[MobileBlade]

That’s is 1000% not the law

It has nothing to do with when the ball is played it’s to do with phases of play it’s the same phase of play so he is offside

That is only for a player being in an offside position when receiving the ball not when interfering with an opponent. Take a read. Also tell me where it talks about phases.

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

 

[nopigfansintown]

It got chalked off because 6ft 4 Vini Souza ran across his eye line as he was about to dive for it


It doesn’t matter if he would have saved it


Dems the rules

"About to" doesn't matter. It's the moment the ball leaves his foot. At that point his sight is obscured only by onside players

 

[nopigfansintown]

Am I the only one who just can't be bothered debating this anymore?!

Yeah, it's done. At least we can add bad/debatable VAR call to our list

 

[nopigfansintown]

I quoted Law 11 in the other thread. To be interfering with an opponent the player AT THE POINT THE BALL IS PLAYED OR TOUCHED, has to be in the direct sight line or challenging. Vini was doing neither. If the ball had come to Vini and he touched it then a different part of the Law comes into play. So many people, including some who should know better, don't appear to know the Law.

Correct

 

[dsr-burnley]

I quoted Law 11 in the other thread. To be interfering with an opponent the player AT THE POINT THE BALL IS PLAYED OR TOUCHED, has to be in the direct sight line or challenging. Vini was doing neither. If the ball had come to Vini and he touched it then a different part of the Law comes into play. So many people, including some who should know better, don't appear to know the Law.

I think you're misinterpeting it. The bit about "when the ball is touched" refers only to whether he is in an offside position. Once it's established that he is in an offside position, the law then moves on to say that he will be offside if he becomes involved with active play.

 

[MobileBlade]

I think you're misinterpeting it. The bit about "when the ball is touched" refers only to whether he is in an offside position. Once it's established that he is in an offside position, the law then moves on to say that he will be offside if he becomes involved with active play.

Nope. Part 1 describes offside position. Part 2 describes an offence. It is really clear with regards to interfering with an opponent.

 

[RAP51]

Agree totally, but if you look at Vini he purposely (I'd say) runs to his right straight in front of the keeper, almost forward, sharp right (from memory as I've not been able to watch again ), so blocks and becomes active. If he'd have moved out to the left I think it wouldn't have been ruled out. Either way don't believe he would have saved it but hey ho

I seem to remember us having a goal chalked off by VAR last season v Fulham in very similar circumstances. We would have gone 4-1 up but ended 3-3, strangely Vini or rather his toenail was deemed offside then

 

[MobileBlade]

I seem to remember us having a goal chalked off by VAR last season v Fulham in very similar circumstances. We would have gone 4-1 up but ended 3-3, strangely Vini or rather his toenail was deemed offside then

Worst one was Norwood at Blackpool. No VAR

 

[Tezza1889]

Clear and Obvious - well that's aged well.

Were micromanaging what the keeper can and can't see which decided a game in a division where there is no VAR..

Was VAR used in our home game against Bristol?

Why not when we have the facility..

Wouldn't argue if it was something clear and obvious, but its going up its own backside this var interpretation of the rules

 

[Melbourne Blade]

My main issue is the current use of VAR completely ignores the intended "clear and obvious error" from the officials in the first place.

It's now 'referee by video' in the premier league and the fact referees are instructed to watch a pitch side monitor because some fucker in a tiny room can't make their mind up either makes a mockery of the entire system.

 

[WayneAllison]

"About to" doesn't matter. It's the moment the ball leaves his foot. At that point his sight is obscured only by onside players

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