| Goal...yes or no? on 09:31 - Apr 7 with 1183 views | NthQldITFC |
Ridiculous. A tvvat of a system.
What next? 2 yard exclusion zone around keepers? |  |
| # WE ARE STEALING THE FUTURE FROM OUR CHILDREN --- WE MUST CHANGE COURSE # | | Poll: | It's driving me nuts |
|  |
| Goal...yes or no? on 09:33 - Apr 7 with 1161 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| Goal...yes or no? on 09:31 - Apr 7 by NthQldITFC |
Ridiculous. A tvvat of a system.
What next? 2 yard exclusion zone around keepers? |
Now you've done it.
If IFAB read TWTD (and why wouldn't they?) then that's the next rule change right there. |  |
| |
| Goal...yes or no? on 09:34 - Apr 7 with 1152 views | CrayonKing |
Normally I hate these marginal VAR calls but I really can’t get worked up about this one. He was stood in an offside position for no reason other than to impede the goalkeeper. Not sure why it’s so controversial! |  | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 10:35 - Apr 7 with 972 views | VanSaParody |
Again, not professionally, but I was a 'keeper of a decent level
This sort of thing is a definite tactic & the intention is to impede the goalies view AND progress towards the ball
I hate seeing a goal stand like this because you'd usually expect your keeper to just dominate & either catch or punch it away
But the attacker has shown no intent to challenge fairly for the ball in his own team's attack, & just stood where he did purely to impede the keeper's view/progress
I don't care about Wolves/West Ham or what the score was or should have been, just the sporting fairness of that scenario! |  | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 10:40 - Apr 7 with 940 views | RadioOrwell |
It's offside. It's so obviously offside I can't see the there's a conversation to be had.
How is than not a distraction for the keeper.
Let that go and you can position a guy permanently just in front of the keeper in any conceivable situation. Or a line of players standing 1 yard in front of him. |  | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 10:46 - Apr 7 with 913 views | Nutkins_Return |
| Goal...yes or no? on 09:34 - Apr 7 by CrayonKing |
Normally I hate these marginal VAR calls but I really can’t get worked up about this one. He was stood in an offside position for no reason other than to impede the goalkeeper. Not sure why it’s so controversial! |
I'm kind of with you here. Lineker is actually becoming part of the problem because he seems to go out of his way to find fault with anything VAR does. Shearer the same.
It's an incredibly frustrating goal to have chalked of but it's. Completely of their own making. The guy is stood offside and his only reason to be their is to obstruct and block the keeper. So what are the refs supposed to do. It's impossible to make a rule that covers every scenario that can be applied consistently.
The analysis is here is awful by pundits. "Keeper should move to see it". Well if he hAs to move to get out the way of an offside player and not be in the position he wants to be in then clearly the offside player is impacting him.
The answer here was don't stand offside trying to block the keeper even if you think in the final situation the keeper wouldn't have got it.
The only bit I agree with is it is open to keepers getting behind an offside player but that's not what happened and they can manage that. | | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 10:58 - Apr 7 with 856 views | DJR |
No. |  | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 11:02 - Apr 7 with 829 views | Sawtrich |
Truly bizarre from Lineker and Wright there. They quote the law and then show a perfect example of a player blocking the keepers line of vision but they think it's the wrong decision. It couldn't be more obvious why it was disallowed. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Goal...yes or no? on 11:02 - Apr 7 with 828 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Goal...yes or no? on 10:58 - Apr 7 by DJR |
No. |
Why is there even a discussion? He is offside, right in front of the keeper, trying to get an advantage by doing so. It is as clear and simple as it coud be, even by the words of the obviously over-complicated rulebook.
Another law made less effective by complication. If it simply said, a player is offside unless in the referee's judgment he is not influencing play, it would cover all situations. Like it used to. See also "handball".
These over complicated rules are making a mess of things and hiding the fundamental fact that referees are required to make a judgment as well as apply the rule. | | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:05 - Apr 7 with 686 views | Swansea_Blue |
Offside doesn’t seem to have been mentioned, presumably as it was disallowed for this line of sight rule. That’s rule doesn’t make a lot of sense and I don’t know why it’s needed. No goal is the correct decision, but because of the offside (clearly interfering with play). |  |
| |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:11 - Apr 7 with 671 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:05 - Apr 7 by Swansea_Blue |
Offside doesn’t seem to have been mentioned, presumably as it was disallowed for this line of sight rule. That’s rule doesn’t make a lot of sense and I don’t know why it’s needed. No goal is the correct decision, but because of the offside (clearly interfering with play). |
Its part of the offside rule. Basically trying to put the referee on rails in terms of interpreting whether someone is interfering or not. Telling the referee that it is "interfering" if he is in line of sight. Which is almost always going to be true. But by being so specific, they have made it worse and removed the element of judgment. They create the argument that if a player is not in the line of sight, then he is not interfering, which can clearly be completely wrong in many circumstances.
The motd analysis is barking mad. They are saying that because the keeper could have done something different, its not offside. Which is absurd. | | | |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:13 - Apr 7 with 661 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:11 - Apr 7 by redrickstuhaart |
Its part of the offside rule. Basically trying to put the referee on rails in terms of interpreting whether someone is interfering or not. Telling the referee that it is "interfering" if he is in line of sight. Which is almost always going to be true. But by being so specific, they have made it worse and removed the element of judgment. They create the argument that if a player is not in the line of sight, then he is not interfering, which can clearly be completely wrong in many circumstances.
The motd analysis is barking mad. They are saying that because the keeper could have done something different, its not offside. Which is absurd. |
Ah right, thanks for the explanation. Agree with last paragraph; it seems like a daft argument. | |
| |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:18 - Apr 7 with 642 views | pointofblue |
That was more offside than the one given at Blackburn as Szmodics was in front of Hladky. The officials aren’t at fault here. Why should the keeper move to evade someone who is offside? If he has to do so then he is interfering with play.
Lineker, Dublin and Wright are non-entities who should be moved on now - from than analysis, for the good of the game. | |
| |
| Goal...yes or no? on 13:58 - Apr 7 with 575 views | Cheltenham_Blue |
Awful decision that, awful.
Stonewall penalty for West Ham |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
