Their “goal”

[Rochdaleblade]

He was in front of the ball and beyond the last man, so was in an offside position. The law may be non-sensical but VAR definitely got this one right. I don't want VAR to start getting their protractors along with their wobbly lines to decide if the ball went forwards. It is similar to the goal West Ham had disallowed against us last season, in that it was a perfectly correct decision that looked a bit unfair. Even so, fuck VAR.

 

[Bladepicker]

It's offside but it always amuses me how many people don't know the laws of the game.

Was good to look on twitter for this last night. Lots of indignant Brighton fans who then rapidly backtracked when they realised they were wrong

 

[BarcaBlade]

As did I, but I was worried for a minute that VAR weren't going to look at it as none of the commentary team seemed to pick it up.

I'm still fully expecting our goal to be ruled out for something even though it's the day after the match.

 

[ormester]

We got a let off with the Brighton equaliser ruled out by VAR offside decision. I think if it had been us we’d have been well miffed.
When their player sort of slipped and headed it on, for me it didn’t look like the ball was played forwards. Any comments anyone?

He was offside I did Wonder where the lad came from offside clear

 

[Flatulent_Bob]

Called it as offside when live, then thought Osborn had scored it when it was given.
He’s a mile off, no question.

 

[Working Class Hero]

I can predict there will be so many times next season where will be up in arms in horror that we don't have VAR. There will be so many quotes from our supporters such as; 'if we had VAR, our goal would have stood' or, 'if we had VAR, their goal would have been ruled out', or even and hopefully, 'when we gat back into the Premier, we will have at least VAR to get these decisions right'.
Ironic eh?

There will, but the game will be SO much better for it.

 

[CarlMcBlade]

We got a let off with the Brighton equaliser ruled out by VAR offside decision. I think if it had been us we’d have been well miffed.
When their player sort of slipped and headed it on, for me it didn’t look like the ball was played forwards. Any comments anyone?

Who cares?

 

[Sheff de party]

As someone else said. A similar thing happened to Man C a few months ago, but they got away with it.

That was different. That goal was allowed because Mings took possession of the ball. None of our players did that.

(Not saying I agree with the decision, but it’s a very different example).

In our case, it was a clear offside. Just unusual as it didn’t go forward. VAR did its job for once.

 

[Geordie Blade]

That was different. That goal was allowed because Mings took possession of the ball. None of our players did that.

(Not saying I agree with the decision, but it’s a very different example).

In our case, it was a clear offside. Just unusual as it didn’t go forward. VAR did its job for once.

The odd thing is that, by being two yards offside, he actually put himself at a disadvantage in terms of getting to the ball first. If defenders defend properly, it should be almost impossible to be offside if the ball goes backwards!

 

[cooperblade]

I can predict there will be so many times next season where will be up in arms in horror that we don't have VAR. There will be so many quotes from our supporters such as; 'if we had VAR, our goal would have stood' or, 'if we had VAR, their goal would have been ruled out', or even and hopefully, 'when we gat back into the Premier, we will have at least VAR to get these decisions right'.
Ironic eh?

I'm trying really hard not to think that Rotherham wouldn't have got beat yesterday if there was VAR in the second tier. I have to stick to my principles even if weds stay up because Rotherham get done over every week.

 

[SuperSonicBlade89]

That was different. That goal was allowed because Mings took possession of the ball. None of our players did that.

(Not saying I agree with the decision, but it’s a very different example).

In our case, it was a clear offside. Just unusual as it didn’t go forward. VAR did its job for once.

Thanks, I could not remember all the details. Yeah it came off Mings so no offside.

I'm not against the concept of VAR.
I'm against the way it has been implemented. However in this case it was actually used correctly when the linesman missed it.

Although I never really understood why linesmen only do half a job. They are expected to see through to the other side of the pitch with nearly 20 bodies in and around the box? He was blindsided. If the other liner was permitted to enter the other half of the pitch then it's less of an issue. Is it because linesmen arn't fit enough to run all the way? Joking obviously as they'd be buggered catching up with play if someone like Adama or Burke were playing

 

[Sheff de party]

The odd thing is that, by being two yards offside, he actually put himself at a disadvantage in terms of getting to the ball first. If defenders defend properly, it should be almost impossible to be offside if the ball goes backwards!

Normally I’d agree, but it’s our defence

 

[Sheff de party]

Thanks, I could not remember all the details. Yeah it came off Mings so no offside.

I'm not against the concept of VAR.
I'm against the way it has been implemented. However in this case it was actually used correctly when the linesman missed it.

Although I never really understood why linesmen only do half a job. They are expected to see through to the other side of the pitch with nearly 20 bodies in and around the box? He was blindsided. If the other liner was permitted to enter the other half of the pitch then it's less of an issue. Is it because linesmen arn't fit enough to run all the way? Joking obviously as they'd be buggered catching up with play if someone like Adama or Burke were playing

It’s the kind of rare offside I’d expect the referee to give to be honest. Nice to see VAR doing it’s job, it’s the kind of thing it should be used for.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

The odd thing is that, by being two yards offside, he actually put himself at a disadvantage in terms of getting to the ball first. If defenders defend properly, it should be almost impossible to be offside if the ball goes backwards!

I've read your post a few times now and can't get what you mean. In my view, defending properly often means allowing attackers to wander offside. The only way an attacker can be offside when the ball is played backwards is if he is forward of the attacking player of the ball, right? So it is actually good defending to allow him to wander offside. Otherwise you're asking defenders to always play the furthest forward onside, in other words never play for offside and allow the attackers to get as far forwards as they want.
What am I missing?
As far as putting himself at a disadvantage by being offside (I didn't think it was as much as two yards) I also don't agree. Coming back from an offside position is a way to jump into the game from an unexpected position and is why the rule exists. In fact I think the opposite is true and disagree with the way players play themselves onside during a move and then receive the ball. I believe that no player should be allowed to be involved in the same move that leads to a goal if he was offside at any point in the move, as that puts an almost impossible burden on defenders to cover offside players.
(During the game, I immediately thought this goal was offside, but then questioned myself when it wasn't immediately given, it didn't look like it was going to VAR and the replay showed the ball going backwards.)

 

[scouseblade]

Wasn't there goals at Man City and Barnsley a few months ago that involved the same scenario of a player coming back from offside and scoring sparking off arguments ?

Yeah and they changed the rule.

 

[Balham Blade]

Exactly. The offisde rule doesn't dictate whether the ball is played forward or not. As such, no argument - it was legitimately offside

This. The only thing that matters is the position of the player receiving the ball relevant to either the ball or the opposition players.

As someone else said. A similar thing happened to Man C a few months ago, but they got away with it.

Sheff de party beat me to it but that one was different. Rodri was a long, long way offside when Bernardo Silva headed the ball forwards but because Mings controlled it (badly...there's a surprise) Rodri was then deemed onside when he came back to tackle Mings. FWIW I completely disagree with the decision to change the law - Mings should have been aware of where Rodri was and should have dealt with the situation. It was Mings' awful touch which saw him get caught in possession, not Rodri's position.

 

[jt64]

I'm still fully expecting our goal to be ruled out for something even though it's the day after the match.

My first though in real time was that Didz was off in the build up

 

[jono_t2000]

I think VAR were more interested to see if Osborn got the final touch, as the offside itself was clear and obvious

 

[WhiteHawk]

Clearly offside, I called it in the shoutbox as soon as they showed a replay. It took VAR about 5 seconds which shows you how clear it was.

 

[Gavlar]

A couple of things about this goal. 1. Technically it was offside but how someone can be gaining an advantage by running back from an offside position to getting a ball I don’t know.
2. We should have cleared it.
3. We are due some var luck.

 

[Stu_Blade]

Taking my source from ESPN and putting my cowboy hat on for stats. https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...affected-every-premier-league-club-in-2020-21 VAR this season hasn't been that bad for us.
In theory the game against Chelsea we should have won 2-1 (2 VAR decisions against) . You could argue that no red card for Lundstram and we may have held on for 3 points rather than one. So we could in theory have 6 extra points there

However without VAR it "gave" us the wins vs Newcastle and Brighton instead of draws. Gave us a point vs Fulham. So that is 5 points it's given us.

With the Villa, West Ham (was a penalty being overturned for them) and Liverpool (1 for and 1 against) not mattering when it comes to the score. We beat Villa with 10 men VAR decision so that didn't matter.

So to conclude the VAR is against us in theory we could at best argue we "owed 1 point" this season.

 

[Stu_Blade]

The law on offside can sometimes be more confusing than its worth. Too many exceptions etc.

 

[Hamburg Blade]

Taking my source from ESPN and putting my cowboy hat on for stats. https://www.espn.co.uk/football/eng...affected-every-premier-league-club-in-2020-21 VAR this season hasn't been that bad for us.
In theory the game against Chelsea we should have won 2-1 (2 VAR decisions against) . You could argue that no red card for Lundstram and we may have held on for 3 points rather than one. So we could in theory have 6 extra points there

However without VAR it "gave" us the wins vs Newcastle and Brighton instead of draws. Gave us a point vs Fulham. So that is 5 points it's given us.

With the Villa, West Ham (was a penalty being overturned for them) and Liverpool (1 for and 1 against) not mattering when it comes to the score. We beat Villa with 10 men VAR decision so that didn't matter.

So to conclude the VAR is against us in theory we could at best argue we "owed 1 point" this season.

This type of argument, perhaps valid when VAR first came in, doesn't hold up anymore. On field refs and linesmen have altered the way they give decisions based on the existence of VAR. In other words, without VAR some of these decisions may have been given anyway, particularly the more obvious ones. Over time, some decisions will simply never be given by on field refs - for example, they know that every single goal will be checked with slow-mos and from different angles. Why would the ref try and make a real-time decision?

 

[Sheffsteel]

It's offside but it always amuses me how many people don't know the laws of the game.

Was good to look on twitter for this last night. Lots of indignant Brighton fans who then rapidly backtracked when they realised they were wrong

Agree....some of the VAR decisions have been based on judgement....for example penaltiy awards.
VAR tends to look for a touch by the defender on the attacker but it can’t show the strength of a touch....so strikers sometimes fall down on the slightest touch.

However this is offside and thankfully VAR gets these right....because it’s black and white.
The only potential issue with offside is when its really tight decision....so half a big toe might end up being offside.

The Brighton goal isn‘t even up for discussion....it doesn’t involve luck....it’s the offside rule being correctly implemented.

 

[Stu_Blade]

This type of argument, perhaps valid when VAR first came in, doesn't hold up anymore. On field refs and linesmen have altered the way they give decisions based on the existence of VAR. In other words, without VAR some of these decisions may have been given anyway, particularly the more obvious ones. Over time, some decisions will simply never be given by on field refs - for example, they know that every single goal will be checked with slow-mos and from different angles. Why would the ref try and make a real-time decision?

Agreed with that to be fair. The problem is when the technology isn't there for example in the case of last season "goal" against Villa. The official was in the correct position but relied on his tech rather than gut. In Rugby it is different as there are natural breaks in play where if a ball is cleared off the line or a player goes down usually the play continues in football.

 

[Mojo]

VAR is actually a great thing. It's just the 's who implement it that are suspect. Trying be to be too clever for their own good

 

[Digs blade]

My first though in real time was that Didz was off in the build up

Have to admit I thought that as well. Was this because it was close or because VAR has made us more paranoid ? I was urging in my head for Brighton to get back to the centre circle quickly to take the kick off hoping that nobody had noticed

 

[Harrisblade]

The law on offside can sometimes be more confusing than its worth. Too many exceptions etc.

Far better the old system where the left winger could be offside when the ball was played down the opposite flank

 

[Sheff de party]

A couple of things about this goal. 1. Technically it was offside but how someone can be gaining an advantage by running back from an offside position to getting a ball I don’t know.
2. We should have cleared it.
3. We are due some var luck.

Just a thought Regarding 1), as a defender you tend to ignore players in an offside position. So I’m that situation, you might take an extra touch to make a better clearance if you think the bloke behind you can’t play the ball.

 

[Balham Blade]

VAR is actually a great thing. It's just the 's who implement it that are suspect. Trying be to be too clever for their own good

The biggest issue with VAR is the attempt to freeze time to gauge offsides. When does a player make a pass: is it the moment the foot touches the ball or the moment the ball leaves the foot? They're effectively trying to freeze a continuous motion to make a binary decision and that's almost impossible.

The other thing they need to sort out is the slow motion replays. Yes, there might have been 'contact' but the question should be whether it's sufficient to result in a foul. The Dani Ceballos penalty decision on Friday showed everything that's wrong with the current application: minimal contact given as a penalty and not overturned by VAR but play brought back for a fractional offside three passes before.