The disallowed 'goal'

[haich1889]

I also did think it was a bit of justification for VAR and its new transparency rather than actually giving the right decision. However I would have liked to hear/read the whole transcript from the moment the goal scored to the point of announcement by the ref. Not that it would change anything but why have the ref announce it doesnt make any difference to me whether he did or played charades (TV.... 3 words) show us the whole conversation not the edited highlight.

in rugby the ref watches the big screens around the ground & the fans get to see ass well. Totally transparent. If they watch 4 or 5 times & it's still not clear, on field decision stands. Not a little screen at pitch side.

 

[haich1889]

The problem with this idea is that it doesn’t take into account players’ ability. An international goalkeeper should in theory be able to save more than a League 2 keeper, and I don’t know how you legislate for that supposed difference.

For a keeper that had his vision blocked, he did well to dive the right way. Also another factor that made it hard to take. I don't recall the keeper or other players complaining or appealing???

 

[Jon B]

If our forwards had reacted as quickly as their defenders did in moving out of the 6 yard box we wouldn't need to be debating about whether anyone was interfering with play.

 

[Toto]

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

 

[Jon B]

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

You're tempting fate!

Much more of that and the ghost of Bill Shankly will hunt you down.

 

[Toto]

You're tempting fate!

Much more of that and the ghost of Bill Shankly will hunt you down.

John Harris maybe........let's hope

 

[Champagneblade]

Don't think that what the Law states. If you're saying Moore touched the ball and Souza was onside at that point then it's not offside. The issue seems to be that after Burrows shot, Souza moved towards the keeper thus interfering with him. However the Law does not say that. It clearly states the moment it is played or touch. At that point he was neither blocking the view or challenging and therefore is not offside. The Law is quite simple.

“At that point he was neither blocking the view or challenging and therefore is not offside.”

Key point for me.

In truth it would have caused far less controversy had it stood. The Sunderland players were not complaining. It was a poorly cleared corner that got slammed back into the area at pace that that keeper have a sight of when it was struck and got nowhere near even though he dived. If you asked him honestly I doubt he’d say he would have saved it anyway.

By intervening it has created far more controversy. As per the point, in what way was it clear and obvious?

The desire of the smart arses at the PGMOL to re-referee matches from Edgely Park rather than remove absolute howlers is what spoils the game.

If they want to be smart then bring AI in fully. Automated offside calls, when it comes to line of vision, draw your fancy lines to see if it was blocking the view.

Unfortunately they are too smart for their own good but not smart enough.

 

[Houston_Blade]

I hate var I think it slows the game down and steals moments from football which is what it's all about even controversial ones.

I can't see them not using it unfortunately. I would prefer a cricket style review system where a side has ten seconds and 2 unsuccessful reviews per game before losing them per game. It would cap it somewhat.

I think it would need to be less than 2 reviews but this is a good idea. Just 1 per game would be fine otherwise shite teams in tight games could contest a couple of goals and get away with it.

If refs and liners weren’t morons though it would make things much better.

This issue now is that refs are being brought into the PL knowing that they have a failsafe and can be shit and have a computer sweep up after them.

The more I think about the Championship, the more I'm gonna miss it. Just good, honest, tooth and nail football. No VAR, no dodgy Man Utd supporting refs, no overpaid wankers diving around on the floor.

It really is a great league to watch.

Ironically Man Utd are the team you need to catch next season to stay up. Better hope that all the refs can’t remember the glory days!

 

[Blade-on-Tyne]

The case that VAR is ruining the game was clearly demonstrated over the weekend.
Both ourselves and Villa had two perfectly good goals chalked off because of legalistic interpretation of what VAR can (and in Villa’s case can’t) do.
VAR should be restricted to ‘ball across the line’ decisions - like in tennis.
All the rest should be left to the referee and linos.

 

[dsr-burnley]

View attachment 211934
View attachment 211935

Richard Keys is being silly. If a ball is deflected and goes in because the keeper dives that way but too late, you wouldn't say the deflection made no difference because the keeper dived, would you?

There is certainly a chance that the Sunderland keeper lost a tenth of a second because of the player who may or may not be in his way. Diving a tenth of a second late may make all the difference. Whether it's offside or not can still be argued, but the fact that the keeper (eventually) dived in that direction is not a factor. (I reckon that the onside player - was it Moore? - was possibly the one who obstructed the keeper's view, but it's easy to see why the man in the offside position caused the officials to think he was interfering.)

Wouldn't it have saved all the argument if he had just run up the field with the defenders?

 

[Greenwich Blade]

Richard Keys is being silly. If a ball is deflected and goes in because the keeper dives that way but too late, you wouldn't say the deflection made no difference because the keeper dived, would you?

There is certainly a chance that the Sunderland keeper lost a tenth of a second because of the player who may or may not be in his way. Diving a tenth of a second late may make all the difference. Whether it's offside or not can still be argued, but the fact that the keeper (eventually) dived in that direction is not a factor. (I reckon that the onside player - was it Moore? - was possibly the one who obstructed the keeper's view, but it's easy to see why the man in the offside position caused the officials to think he was interfering.)

Wouldn't it have saved all the argument if he had just run up the field with the defenders?

You would get on well with my Uber driver from Saturday.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You would get on well with my Uber driver from Saturday.View attachment 211950

Yes, well I would definitely let the dust settle a bit. And I certainly don't agree that VAR on balance is good for the game, though if they would stop using it for "level" offsides and start using it do disallow "penalties" were the man has waited for a touch so he could dive, then I might accept it has a purpose.

 

[Champagneblade]

Richard Keys is being silly. If a ball is deflected and goes in because the keeper dives that way but too late, you wouldn't say the deflection made no difference because the keeper dived, would you?

There is certainly a chance that the Sunderland keeper lost a tenth of a second because of the player who may or may not be in his way. Diving a tenth of a second late may make all the difference. Whether it's offside or not can still be argued, but the fact that the keeper (eventually) dived in that direction is not a factor. (I reckon that the onside player - was it Moore? - was possibly the one who obstructed the keeper's view, but it's easy to see why the man in the offside position caused the officials to think he was interfering.)

Wouldn't it have saved all the argument if he had just run up the field with the defenders?

I think the fact that nobody can comment on this without needing three paragraphs shows how it isn’t clear and obvious!

Basically. They should have just kept their beak out. They conceded because they made a balls of clearing the corner and it rows sent it back with interest, not because Paterson failed to dive properly because Souza who was nowhere near his line of vision when it was struck, moved across a bit when Paterson was already mid dive and the ball was behind him!

 

[Working Class Hero]

The bottom line is that no Sunderland players even appealed, and had the goal stood there would be zero controversy.

That was not what VAR was brought in for, and it being used for such things is absolutely killing our sport.

 

[LBA_Blade]

I think the fact that nobody can comment on this without needing three paragraphs shows how it isn’t clear and obvious!

Basically. They should have just kept their beak out. They conceded because they made a balls of clearing the corner and it rows sent it back with interest, not because Paterson failed to dive properly because Souza who was nowhere near his line of vision when it was struck, moved across a bit when Paterson was already mid dive and the ball was behind him!

That's the problem with line of vision/interfering with play, when the ball was struck, Souza was about 3 yards to his left where the ball was going. If I was a keeper there is argument to say it was interfering with play and how far does the line of vision go are we talking peripheral vision too, as you might get distracted by that. Line of vision doesn't clear the law up neither does interfering with play. Although the goal would have been ruled out under the old Laws a simple, if you are offside you are offside approach would make things easier. On the flip side no offsides at all and just scrap Law 11 completely, it worked for (field) hockey.

 

[dsr-burnley]

That's the problem with line of vision/interfering with play, when the ball was struck, Souza was about 3 yards to his left where the ball was going. If I was a keeper there is argument to say it was interfering with play and how far does the line of vision go are we talking peripheral vision too, as you might get distracted by that. Line of vision doesn't clear the law up neither does interfering with play. Although the goal would have been ruled out under the old Laws a simple, if you are offside you are offside approach would make things easier. On the flip side no offsides at all and just scrap Law 11 completely, it worked for (field) hockey.

It really wouldn't. As it stands now, if Moore charges down the Sunderland goalkeeper who lumps it forward and a Sheffield U centre half nods the ball back to the Sheffield U goalkeeper, then Moore is not offside because he is not interfering. If that rule was abolished, then it would be a free kick against Sheffield U.

Abolishing the offside rule altogether is a more interesting situation, though the scrum a defending free kicks could be a problem.

 

[Jon B]

Abolishing the offside rule altogether is a more interesting situation, though the scrum a defending free kicks could be a problem.

Abolish it altogether?

That takes me back to playground football with a forward standing next to the goalie all game. No running around, just standing there ready to bundle the ball into goal from a couple of inches.

Technically known as a shitliner.

 

[jt64]

It is physically impossible most of the time for the linesman to look down the line & watch the kicker at the same time. He would need each eye looking in a different direction. Like Clarence the cross eyed lion.

Hence why they don't. The linesman who would call the offside is looking down the line. The other ref tells him in his ear when a pass is made.

 

[Colombia Blade]

Vini is stood in an offside position, but is he blocking Patterson's view of Burrows striking the ball? Did the referee/VAR team ever see it from this angle? (Sorry if this was already posted haven't read the whole thread)

 

[Tom Bott]

Former Premier League referee Keith Hackett has weighed in on the major VAR controversy from the Championship play-off final at Wembley, stating Sheffield United’s disallowed second goal against Sunderland should have been allowed to stand.



And he's a Wednesday fan.