Video reviews

[Kenilworth]

In Wilders interview he says the Ref now claims he gave it for a foul by O'Connell not offside.

Which interview is that. The one he gave to Jonathan Buchan?

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Like other sorts, namely Tennis & cricket why don't the powers that be allow each team 3 reviews each for moments of controversy? Was it offside or not - review, was the foul in the box or just out - review, did he dive or not - review.

As with other sports the replays would take seconds to clear up contested incidents. Football refs & lino's get a heck of a lot of decisions wrong and in today's game with the financial stakes so high we should give each side a chance to review moments of doubt.

Only for major incidents I'd suggest. i.e. those linked to the scoring or conceding of a goal. Otherwise it could get very tedious. Especially when the manager is one as petulant as the manager of a certain Welsh side that we are playing tomorrow.

 

[Kenilworth]

Basham! The Lino flagged for offside and said 'Number five', that is indisputable, if they say otherwise they're just digging a deeper hole for themselves.

Sadly the whole game is geared up to protect the reputation of everyone involved and such is their arrogance, they will rarely hold their hands up to admit any error of judgement. I doubt lying is beneath them.

Yep, was about to say the same about the lino saying "number 5"
Did the ref blow for a foul?
Not seen his "gesture" on the decision.
If he pointed to a spot on the pitch then that would have been disallowed for a foul.
If he made a gesture indicating a line accross the pitch then he would have given it as offiside.
If he pointed to the centre circle then he would have given the goal, initially, and then disallowed based on what his assistant told him.

Agree that the OG element is a moot point as JO'C would be clearly interfering with play.

Neither Sky or Channel 5 covered any option around it being disallowed for a foul. It was all about the offside.
If it was disallowed for a foul then wouldn't the ref have blown straightaway and been at the position of the offence indicating where the free kick needed to be taken from? The celebrations from the players were 'allowed' to go on indicating to me that the ref didn't see a foul. Having not replayed any of the footage I can't be sure. Anyone recorded it and can verify?

 

[Norderner]

In Wilders interview he says the Ref now claims he gave it for a foul by O'Connell not offside.

Knew that was gonna happen! There was an interview with Howard Webb last season on BT. They always check their phones at half time and full time. Obviously, if they've dropped a bollock on tv, their family or mates will point it out, thus, they know for definite, so if possible, they can look for another get out clause, which the lino cunt has obviously done.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

I wouldn't be so sure considering he gave this as offside.

View attachment 29554

Yes, that one was a beauty wasn't it? I wonder if that linesman, his name is Paul Hodskinson btw, had just got a little bit mixed up about the offside rule? At the very least, he applied it zealously, so zealously in fact that even if a player was thinking of running offside, Mr Hodskinson's extra-sensory perception allowed him to spot it, and blow up instantly.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Knew that was gonna happen! There was an interview with Howard Webb last season on BT. They always check their phones at half time and full time. Obviously, if they've dropped a bollock on tv, their family or mates will point it out, thus, they know for definite, so if possible, they can look for another get out clause, which the lino cunt has obviously done.

you've got a vivid imagination mate! I bet you seriously believe that don't you?

 

[8lade]

That's a split second after the ball was kicked.

I'm just amazed he managed to still have his flag down at this point.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Yep, was about to say the same about the lino saying "number 5"
Did the ref blow for a foul?
Not seen his "gesture" on the decision.
If he pointed to a spot on the pitch then that would have been disallowed for a foul.
If he made a gesture indicating a line accross the pitch then he would have given it as offiside.
If he pointed to the centre circle then he would have given the goal, initially, and then disallowed based on what his assistant told him.

Agree that the OG element is a moot point as JO'C would be clearly interfering with play.

Neither Sky or Channel 5 covered any option around it being disallowed for a foul. It was all about the offside.
If it was disallowed for a foul then wouldn't the ref have blown straightaway and been at the position of the offence indicating where the free kick needed to be taken from? The celebrations from the players were 'allowed' to go on indicating to me that the ref didn't see a foul. Having not replayed any of the footage I can't be sure. Anyone recorded it and can verify?

If it's a foul the linesman indicates by waving his flag. If it's offside the linesman indicates by holding the flag still aloft - then lowering it and holding it still to point to the place where the offside took place. The two flag signals are totally different and cannot be confused. The linesman, in this case, flagged for offside and clearly said "number 5".

 

[Norderner]

you've got a vivid imagination mate! I bet you seriously believe that don't you?

Vivid imagination? If you've got BT sport, it should still be available to watch.

 

[Cerberus Blade]

Vivid imagination? If you've got BT sport, it should still be available to watch.

I've not seen the Howard Webb thing, but are you saying that it was documented that refs routinely check their phones at half time to see if they've been accused of dropping a bollock and then quickly get together with the other officials and make up some story to cover up? I find that extremely far-fetched. If that's really happening then the whole game is corrupt including the officials - and bad as some officials are I don't believe any of them deliberately set out to cheat or be corrupt.

 

[Norderner]

Is it not human nature that if you've dropped a bollock you try to find a way out? Especially such a public bollock?

 

[freddyp]

Methinks ref probably realised he'd dropped a bollock awarding free kick in first place and told Lino to flag for last man being offside. Lino's don't breathe these days unless told to do so.

 

[Kenilworth]

If it's a foul the linesman indicates by waving his flag. If it's offside the linesman indicates by holding the flag still aloft - then lowering it and holding it still to point to the place where the offside took place. The two flag signals are totally different and cannot be confused. The linesman, in this case, flagged for offside and clearly said "number 5".

Yeah, I get that. I was commenting on what the ref did at the time.
A foul is indicated by waving the flag and pointing in the playing direction of the team who had the offence committed against them.
As you say, that was clearly an indication of offside from the assistant.
It's the actions of the referee at the time and just after that I was interested in.
Did he signal a goal and then come back to it to disallow the goal for an incident or did he give it as offside straightaway based on the flag from the assistant? Or, as it seems to be reported now - did the ref signal a foul?

 

[Bladesway]

Like other sorts, namely Tennis & cricket why don't the powers that be allow each team 3 reviews each for moments of controversy? Was it offside or not - review, was the foul in the box or just out - review, did he dive or not - review.

As with other sports the replays would take seconds to clear up contested incidents. Football refs & lino's get a heck of a lot of decisions wrong and in today's game with the financial stakes so high we should give each side a chance to review moments of doubt.

All very good but 2 shots of the supposed same incident show different outcomes. Personally I'm old enough not to get a chip on my shoulder every time a decision goes against us. I'll suck up the fact that the lino and ref are doing their best and aren't biased. If we were all that way up then there would be no need for video tech for what in effect us a game.

 

[Bladesway]

Methinks ref probably realised he'd dropped a bollock awarding free kick in first place and told Lino to flag for last man being offside. Lino's don't breathe these days unless told to do so.

Do you really think this?

 

[freddyp]

Do you really think this?

It's only a possible explanation, doesn't mean it's right. I think refs award the majority of unclear throw ins to one of the teams these days. Linos just seem to follow the refs signal. Some refs appear to want to control all aspects of matches. So it's not beyond the realms of possibility that ref looked to Lino to get him out of the shit. All supposition though, granted.

 

[1889]

I've not seen the Howard Webb thing, but are you saying that it was documented that refs routinely check their phones at half time to see if they've been accused of dropping a bollock and then quickly get together with the other officials and make up some story to cover up? I find that extremely far-fetched. If that's really happening then the whole game is corrupt including the officials - and bad as some officials are I don't believe any of them deliberately set out to cheat or be corrupt.

I have absolutely no doubt that the referee would say he gave the free kick for a foul, in order to get the linesman out of the shit.

However, the truth of the matter is, if he had given it for a foul he'd have blown his whistle immediately, probably before the ball even went in the net. We know he didn't blow until seeing the flag for offside, by which time half of Uniteds team were celebrating in the corner, so either he got his pea stuck or he gave it for offside?

I accept I'm not a Sky expert summariser, but that account of events seems pretty indisputable to me?

 

[wizadry]

The fact they're trying to squirm their way out of it is ridiculous and makes it look like cheating. If they came out and said they made a bollock then that would be more believable for some people, I personally think it needs investigating.

 

[Norderner]

The esteemed ex Premiershit ref, Dermot Gallagher of SSN seems to agree as well. To quote the ex ref this morning "I've no idea why it was disallowed".

 

[mattbianco1]

Yep, was about to say the same about the lino saying "number 5"
Did the ref blow for a foul?
Not seen his "gesture" on the decision.
If he pointed to a spot on the pitch then that would have been disallowed for a foul.
If he made a gesture indicating a line accross the pitch then he would have given it as offiside.
If he pointed to the centre circle then he would have given the goal, initially, and then disallowed based on what his assistant told him.

Agree that the OG element is a moot point as JO'C would be clearly interfering with play.

Neither Sky or Channel 5 covered any option around it being disallowed for a foul. It was all about the offside.
If it was disallowed for a foul then wouldn't the ref have blown straightaway and been at the position of the offence indicating where the free kick needed to be taken from? The celebrations from the players were 'allowed' to go on indicating to me that the ref didn't see a foul. Having not replayed any of the footage I can't be sure. Anyone recorded it and can verify?

Definitely offside was the decision. 8:50 onwards on the following video.
The linesman looks across at the ref to tell him who *HE* has given the decision against. HE then continues to hold the flag horizontally.

Only thing we can't see is the referees initial gesture if any.

Watch the latest videos from Sheffield United on iFollow - https://www.sufc.co.uk/ifollow/

 

[INTAKE BLADE]

The esteemed ex Premiershit ref, Dermot Gallagher of SSN seems to agree as well. To quote the ex ref this morning "I've no idea why it was disallowed".

End of thread
They cost us a fantastic point

 

[Kenilworth]

The esteemed ex Premiershit ref, Dermot Gallagher of SSN seems to agree as well. To quote the ex ref this morning "I've no idea why it was disallowed".

Overtwatificational officialdom, it appears.