The disallowed 'goal'

[jt64]

As to Chris Kavanagh...the smug, overblown prick was absolutely loving it. The way he marched onto the pitch and then stood there, loving the eyes of the world on him, before making his pathetic little announcement. Imagine being such a pathetic person that you take such joy in crushing the hopes of 30,000+ people. I hope every shit he takes for the rest of his life is a hedgehog, and I hope that on his way for every one of those shits, he treads on a lego brick in bare feet. The utter and total twat.

You really, really don't want to see a highlights package of NHL referee Wes McCauley if Kavanagh doing his job in a deadpan manner annoys you that much

 

[HodgysBrokenThumb]

I do love how people are using the "clear and obvious" verbiage, intended to apply to subjective decisions such as fouls, and applying it to objective facts, such as whether a player is in an offside position or not. I also love how some people also think that this is cricket, and that a lack of an appeal equates to an instant not out decision

Beware the excessive faith in the accuracy and objectivity of technology. Much of the discussion about the play-off final is about whether Vini was at one point offside and impeding the goalkeeper. Part of that judgment is subjective, and never can be an objective truth. And physicists explain that for many offside decisions, current technology cannot give an accurate decision: if a defender is running in one direction, and an attacker is running in the opposite direction, and 50 yards away a player kicks the ball towards them, the cameras in the ground cannot capture the nano-second when the ball leaves the boot (the ball is distorted by the kick, and the separation of the ball and boot is hidden from the camera), and the nano-second when the relevant part of the body of the attacker passes the relevant part of the defender’s body to become offside. Cameras are objective, but are not necessarily correct. One of the biggest lies of modern times is that the camera never lies. It can help clarify many things, but in modern VAR we have created a monster.

 

[haich1889]

Agree with all of this. If the lino had flagged straight away, we'd have had a moment of "YEAA...oh fuck, ah well, keep going." It's the wait that is torment. Both teams back ready to kick off again, scoreboard saying 2-0, crack on.

It continues to fuck me off (not just about that decision) that one of the best things about football, goal celebrations, are being put on hold and then rendered null and void because the authorities are just desperately searching, every time a goal is scored, to find a way to rule it out to justify the use of this bullshit technology.

As to Chris Kavanagh...the smug, overblown prick was absolutely loving it. The way he marched onto the pitch and then stood there, loving the eyes of the world on him, before making his pathetic little announcement. Imagine being such a pathetic person that you take such joy in crushing the hopes of 30,000+ people. I hope every shit he takes for the rest of his life is a hedgehog, and I hope that on his way for every one of those shits, he treads on a lego brick in bare feet. The utter and total twat.

A kindred spirit. A gre⁵hu

 

[PotterLog]

So if Burrows had robbed the keeper on the halfway line, but Vini Souza was blocking the keeper's view of the ball while Burrows bangs it into an open net, technically it should be disallowed?

That's a genuine question by the way, as I don't know the answer. Surely though, the common sense decision is the correct decision.

The wording is about "preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball" by blocking his line of vision, so in your example maybe the ref could still allow the goal,

 

[ChrisBlade]

The wording is about "preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball" by blocking his line of vision, so in your example maybe the ref could still allow the goal,

It is always could, maybe, might with your responses. Could, maybe, might can be applied to that goal, too.

Went against us at great costs and subsequent debate. But could, might, maybe.

This horrible technology for all its atmospheric flaws isn’t objective either. It still is opinion or interpretation based.

It is a bullshit rule. Line of vision is ONLY relevant in a common sense view of the rule whenever the keeper could actually and realistically play the ball without the obstruction.

If he is twenty yards away but his line of vision gets briefly blocked, calling it active is a lottery win. That is why the German ref allowed the goal, saying offside yes, crossing your sight line yes, but you aren’t saving the fucker either way so the briefly obstructed view is not active or determinative for the outcome.

That is equally arguable for Burrows = bullshit subjective rule, applied by a shite technology that needs scrapping or heavy pruning back.

 

[PotterLog]

It is always could, maybe, might with your responses. Could, maybe, might can be applied to that goal, too.

Went against us at great costs and subsequent debate. But could, might, maybe.

This horrible technology for all its atmospheric flaws isn’t objective either. It still is opinion or interpretation based.

It is a bullshit rule. Line of vision is ONLY relevant in a common sense view of the rule whenever the keeper could actually and realistically play the ball without the obstruction.

If he is twenty yards away but his line of vision gets briefly blocked, calling it active is a lottery win. That is why the German ref allowed the goal, saying offside yes, crossing your sight line yes, but you aren’t saving the fucker either way so the briefly obstructed view is not active or determinative for the outcome.

That is equally arguable for Burrows = bullshit subjective rule, applied by a shite technology that needs scrapping or heavy pruning back.

You could be right. Maybe.

 

[LBA_Blade]

It is always could, maybe, might with your responses. Could, maybe, might can be applied to that goal, too.

Went against us at great costs and subsequent debate. But could, might, maybe.

This horrible technology for all its atmospheric flaws isn’t objective either. It still is opinion or interpretation based.

It is a bullshit rule. Line of vision is ONLY relevant in a common sense view of the rule whenever the keeper could actually and realistically play the ball without the obstruction.

If he is twenty yards away but his line of vision gets briefly blocked, calling it active is a lottery win. That is why the German ref allowed the goal, saying offside yes, crossing your sight line yes, but you aren’t saving the fucker either way so the briefly obstructed view is not active or determinative for the outcome.

That is equally arguable for Burrows = bullshit subjective rule, applied by a shite technology that needs scrapping or heavy pruning back.

That is the major problem as seen in several debates not on just this one but on others too. The Laws of the game I personally think are written with a bit of opaqueness so they can be justified later. Quoting Law 11 for the Offside "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision".

In the real world what does that mean, with the opponent in this case being a keeper does that matter or to what extent is clearly obstructing apply. I think it would have helped if Souza would have been facing away from the keeper and was running away from him. Either way I totally agree, they need to go back to the drawing board with clarity.

Souza was about 3 yards too the left of their keeper when the initial shot was made, he was in an offside position stood in line with the keeper, he wasn't in my view unless you are looking at a 180 degrees of vision, "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision", he didn't challenge for the ball or anything else. The laws are as clear as mud and until you have a black or white answer it is always up for debate. In sports like Rugby offside is very black or white without that many variables.

 

[Champagneblade]

I do love how people are using the "clear and obvious" verbiage, intended to apply to subjective decisions such as fouls, and applying it to objective facts, such as whether a player is in an offside position or not. I also love how some people also think that this is cricket, and that a lack of an appeal equates to an instant not out decision

The being offside element is objective. But the interfering is subjective. He isn’t when it’s struck. At which point the keeper already has to set himself and make a decision.

In my view, he’s already not getting there whether Souza moves out the way or stands there doing Hokey Cokey.

Pity as it was a great strike and from our side I reckon the game was done and dusted. It’s a massive slice of fortune for a keeper who I reckon wasn’t saving the shot and suddenly a force majeure comes and saves his ass.

 

[reedy63]

You all should know by now it can only happen to The Blades, A reght goal ruled out because of VAR that we don't use in the championship. The goal should have stood. I am sure we would have won that game and gone up.