Richard Keyes Is Correct

[nopigfansintown]

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

Wrong. You only have to watch the other VAR matches and read and understand law 11

 

[MobileBlade]

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

Take it you didn't read Law 11 then.

 

[nopigfansintown]

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.

Yep. This is totally ignored. If you have to stand on the sidelines for minutes the decision doesn't pass the "clear and obvious" hurdle. At that point the decision should be redundant. 1 minute tops.

 

[bakeblade]

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

That decision sums up perfectly the useless VAR system. A system that should only intervene for clear and obvious errors has morphed into a lengthy, forensic examination looking to rule out goals.
Massive plus for us not having it next season.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

Anyone who thinks VAR adds anything positive to the game of football is wrong. In my opinion. Which counts for little.

 

[54yrblade]

Sunderland went to the last kick

We didn't

Got what we deserved

Not good enough. Again

 

[Greasy Chap Butty]

We were on the end of a very dubious decision.
So, we should have come out second half and scored another, instead of holding onto a one goal lead, again.

 

[Gimli]

Imagine you own a pub, and one night someone breaks into it, so you get yourself some cameras to make sure if it happens again you can use the footage to find out who did it and get them barred/arrested etc.

But actually you end up using it to chuck people out for not using a beer mat for their pint.

That’s VAR that is…

 

[dsr-burnley]

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

"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."

This says that the player in an offside position when the ball is played will only be given offside if he becomes involved by:

1. playing the ball;
2. interfering with an opponent;
3. attempting to play the ball;
4. making any other obvious action that affects the opponent.

The referee deemed that your man became involved in active play.

If you try and interpret the rule to say that from a free kick, you can stand a man beside the goalkeeper with the intention of him running in front of the keeper a split second after it's kicked to put him off - it won't work. He will be offside.

 

[HighfieldBlade]

 

[Flumps]

Sunderland went to the last kick

We didn't

Got what we deserved

Not good enough. Again

Absobloodyexactly.

We could debate for eons whether it was the right call or not but who cares now anyway. A questionable VAR call is as regular as a day with a Y in it's name and if one dodgy call throws our entire game when we are both 1 up and with momentum then the very last place we deserve to be is in the PL

Defeat was deserved, suck it up and move on.

 

[MobileBlade]

"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."

This says that the player in an offside position when the ball is played will only be given offside if he becomes involved by:

1. playing the ball;
2. interfering with an opponent;
3. attempting to play the ball;
4. making any other obvious action that affects the opponent.

The referee deemed that your man became involved in active play.

If you try and interpret the rule to say that from a free kick, you can stand a man beside the goalkeeper with the intention of him running in front of the keeper a split second after it's kicked to put him off - it won't work. He will be offside.

The Law doesn't say that though in terms of interfering with an opponent. That is your interpretation.

 

[HillmortonBlade]

A questionable VAR call is as regular as a day with a Y in it's name

Incontrovertible proof that it’s not fit for purpose.

 

[Broomhall Blade]

I will say it again VAR is looking at every single goal scored and tries to find a reason to disallow that goal.

 

[Valley Blade]

I will say it again VAR is looking at every single goal scored and tries to find a reason to disallow that goal.

Dependant on which team scored it.

 

[54yrblade]

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

 

[WayneAllison]

That decision sums up perfectly the useless VAR system. A system that should only intervene for clear and obvious errors has morphed into a lengthy, forensic examination looking to rule out goals.
Massive plus for us not having it next season.

You are wrong, that is why it should be used, that decision decides the game it's offside, VAR intervened and made the right call

We may not like it, but that's how it is, and no amount of kidding yourself will change that

 

[WayneAllison]

Take it you didn't read Law 11 then.

You have either selectively chosen that without reading the other sections or not added the other notes

That isn't what offside is when its interfering with the GK

 

[Bladepicker]

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.

 

[MobileBlade]

You have either selectively chosen that without reading the other sections or not added the other notes

That isn't what offside is when its interfering with the GK

As Bladepicker explains, the only thing it was disallowed for was blocking the line of sight and that was clearly not the case. Dermot Gallagher tried to claim his movement towards the keeper stopped him diving. It didn't. It's subjective. What he didn't do is what the referee said he disallowed the goal far according to Law 11.

 

[WayneAllison]

As Bladepicker explains, the only thing it was disallowed for was blocking the line of sight and that was clearly not the case. Dermot Gallagher tried to claim his movement towards the keeper stopped him diving. It didn't. It's subjective. What he didn't do is what the referee said he disallowed the goal far according to Law 11.

During that phase of play, Souza ran across his eyeline

Offside isn't decided for interference just when the ball is kicked, it is given from the attacker shooting, which then follows the phase of play, any offside player interfering is offside up until the phase of play finishing

 

[WayneAllison]

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.

Your interpretation is wrong

He was offside and ran across his eyeline, causing a distraction. It's offside all day in every league in the world

 

[MobileBlade]

During that phase of play, Souza ran across his eyeline

Offside isn't decided for interference just when the ball is kicked, it is given from the attacker shooting, which then follows the phase of play, any offside player interfering is offside up until the phase of play finishing

Where in the Laws does it talk about phases of play when interfering with a goalkeepers view of the ball? It clearly states at the moment the ball is touched or played. A phase would be if he then challenges the keeper and that is explained in the Laws.

 

[Bladepicker]

Your interpretation is wrong

He was offside and ran across his eyeline, causing a distraction. It's offside all day in every league in the world

My interpretation is not wrong. It's the law.

Please show me the bit of the law that talks about phases of play that you keep banging on about.

The law is basically do you think the keepers vision was clearly obstructed by Vini which stopped him being able to make a play of the ball. That's the law, that's the decision you have to make.

Now you can say the keepers ability to play the ball or attempt to play the ball was affected which you believe to be the case, or you can say that it wasn't which, given he dived as it was struck and before Vini was across him I'd say he wasn't.

It's subjective granted, but it's not an incorrect interpretation and the goal could easily have been allowed within the laws of the game.

 

[knowsnowt]

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

Other than that though, it wasn't fair.

 

[UddersBlade]

I will say it again VAR is looking at every single goal scored and tries to find a reason to disallow that goal.

Exactly - its use in England is a complete joke in comparison to other countries.

 

[Bladepicker]

Where in the Laws does it talk about phases of play when interfering with a goalkeepers view of the ball?

It doesn't. WayneAllison grasp of the law is so bad I can only assume he's a match official at some level. He's probably Stuart Attwell.

 

[Badger Blade]

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

That's the issue I have, mentioned it to some in the ground at the time and on the train back. I just saw a Premier League table that shows what it would look like without VAR and there are a few considerable differences.

Slightly different with the Prem because it would be all or nothing but for us in the Championship, it's picking and choosing and if we hadn't had it all season, why should it be chucked in now?

Experimenting with the interpretation of the rules is fine if its stuck to from day one, not putting something in part way through or changing minds about it.

 

[WayneAllison]

Where in the Laws does it talk about phases of play when interfering with a goalkeepers view of the ball? It clearly states at the moment the ball is touched or played. A phase would be if he then challenges the keeper and that is explained in the Laws.

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

 

[LBA_Blade]

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