The disallowed 'goal'

[PotterLog]

The law says though that it is only penalised if it clearly prevents the player from playing the ball. Given that Patterson could see the ball when it was struck and actually dived towards the ball that he had no chance of getting, I'd say it didn't.

Therefore even with Vini stepping across him it could easily have been given within the laws. It's not cut and dried, it is a subjective decision.

Again, I think that's a slight misreading, or possibly bad wording - I don't think it means that in some circumstances you can obstruct the opponent's line of vision but not affect their ability to play the ball. I think it's saying that the obstructing of the line of vision is the thing that intrinsically prevents the opponent being able to play the ball (always).

Either way, in practice if a player is standing virtually on the keeper's toes, temporarily blocking his view as a shot is coming in, you've got a hard task arguing he wasn't involved in play.

 

[Bladepicker]

Again, I think that's a slight misreading, or possibly bad wording - I don't think it means that in some circumstances you can obstruct the opponent's line of vision but not affect their ability to play the ball. I think it's saying that the obstructing of the line of vision is the thing that intrinsically prevents the opponent being able to play the ball (always).

Either way, in practice if a player is standing virtually on the keeper's toes, temporarily blocking his view as a shot is coming in, you've got a hard task arguing he wasn't involved in play.

That's not true. You can be in the line of vision at a given time and not affect the players ability to play the ball. If the keeper has absolutely no chance of getting to the shot the it's a goal.

Extreme example but if the keeper is well out of position after a deflected ball falls to a striker, he then blasts it into a near empty net but a player is offside between him and the keeper, the goal still stands.

The ref decided that Vini making that move clearly prevented the keeper from making a play at the ball. Again it's subjective but I'd say it's a goal.

 

[PotterLog]

That's not true. You can be in the line of vision at a given time and not affect the players ability to play the ball. If the keeper has absolutely no chance of getting to the shot the it's a goal.

Extreme example but if the keeper is well out of position after a deflected ball falls to a striker, he then blasts it into a near empty net but a player is offside between him and the keeper, the goal still stands.

The ref decided that Vini making that move clearly prevented the keeper from making a play at the ball. Again it's subjective but I'd say it's a goal.

Well ok I accept your extreme example. I didn't mean such an incident couldn't occur in real life, just that I think the intention of the wording in the law is to say that basically if you're obstructing the keeper's view of a shot, you're affecting his ability to play the ball. But I might be wrong. In any case I don't think you could get a much clearer example of "clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision" (and preventing him playing the ball properly by blocking his view) than Souza being about one foot in front of the gk's face as the shot is coming towards the goal.

 

[ForgeBlade]

Technically (sadly) maybe correct, but as others have said, that's not my main problem. The problem is this new system sucking the joy out of the game. When Burrows' shot hit the back of the net, it was genuinely the most amazing moment of my football-supporting life. We were away, we were 2-0 up, at Wembley, in control of the game and seemingly on course to break a 100-year hoodoo. I'm not ashamed to admit there were tears of joy in my eyes. Strangers were hugging each other, everyone around me was going utterly insane. I turned to my dad and said "we're going to hammer these now." (and I really think we would have had the goal stood). It was a moment of pure, unbridled joy, and it was destroyed because some jobsworth in an office was desperate to find a way to rule out the goal. That's how VAR is used in this country. It's not to correct "clear and obvious errors" it's to look at every goal scored and try and find a way to disallow it.

Never thought I'd find myself empathising with Coventry fans, but I now know how they felt in the cup semi final last year, and they have my deepest sympathy.

 

[haich1889]

You lot like pain.......leave it....just a game of football

My mum isn't stupid enough to say that. Complete wind up. As a single parent I have very little social life. Blades have always been my love. In fact I have a crap life so trot off into your own lovely existence & don't make such an insulting statement to those if us who are invested 100% in our team.

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

Sunderland fan here.

Imo, the goal was 50/50 on whether it should have stood. My heart sank when seeing the replay as I couldn't see much wrong with it. I can see why it was disallowed, but can also argue why it should have been allowed.

The whole offside/interfering/not interfering rule seems to be a complete mess.

What a strike btw.

If it’s 50/50 surely the advantage should go to the attacking team…
Anyway you’ll need all that luck and more next year. Will watch with interest.
Hope you have a better time than we did last time.