I don't think Schmeichel's view of the ball was blocked, nor do I think the GK's movement was impeded. It's extremely common to have players very close to the GK when a CK is scoredReally? He's deliberately trying to block the GKs vision on the play. I don't think on something that blatant we really want to analyze shot quality and hypothesize about the GK's chances. This is a completely knucklehead play by the attacker.
But are we even sure it was OS and not impeding without contact? The attacker moved with the GK to block his movement as the cross came in before the shot was taken. That was also an IFK offense.
We are not going too well today on agreeing on points.I don't think Schmeichel's view of the ball was blocked,
Hmm.. Yes I get what you are saying but at the levels I ref at referees are telling me they only really want an offside like that flagging if the keeper is asking for it.Meant to add, granted I dont see the rest of his act and how far he came out, but, charging out waving hands about , Schmeical lis getting a yellow card for that reaction.
Also accepted in advance, dissent is handled differently by the elite ( ignored)
I really hate this mindset. While on one hand I get the idea that the GK is the one who really knows if he was impacted, it's the same kind of message we send to encourage flopping by not calling fouls if the attacker doesn't fall down. So, on one hand we have the @Anubis view that the GK should be cautioned for what he did, and on the other that the GK doesn't get the call unless he does what he did.they only really want an offside like that flagging if the keeper is asking for it.
Opens up an interesting debate. Do you never take player reaction into account when making decisions?I really hate this mindset. While on one hand I get the idea that the GK is the one who really knows if he was impacted, it's the same kind of message we send to encourage flopping by not calling fouls if the attacker doesn't fall down. So, on one hand we have the @Anubis view that the GK should be cautioned for what he did, and on the other that the GK doesn't get the call unless he does what he did.
Don't give a PK in the absence of an appeal and you probably won't go too far wrong in life (without TV replays that is)Opens up an interesting debate. Do you never take player reaction into account when making decisions?
Just for clarity, this is NOT meant to imply criticism, genuinely interested.
It would certainly be an overstatement to say never. But I also think there is a difference between watching for reactions and not doing without an actual appeal. Players aren't supposed to be appealing. I suppose level can also matter, too--at the professional level they appeal for almost everything, so I suppose the lack of an appeal means something. At lower levels it can mean the young player is polite and respecting the R or that the player doesn't know/understand that he was fouled. But the more we refuse to call without an appeal, the more we are encouraging players to appeal for everything and to do so in a highly visible way that no one can miss. That can make for a fine line between an appeal and dissent. And it can make us look like we are letting players call the game.Opens up an interesting debate. Do you never take player reaction into account when making decisions?
Just for clarity, this is NOT meant to imply criticism, genuinely interested.
It is true that an 'appeal' can be completely absent in kids footyIt would certainly be an overstatement to say never. But I also think there is a difference between watching for reactions and not doing without an actual appeal. Players aren't supposed to be appealing. I suppose level can also matter, too--at the professional level they appeal for almost everything, so I suppose the lack of an appeal means something. At lower levels it can mean the young player is polite and respecting the R or that the player doesn't know/understand that he was fouled. But the more we refuse to call without an appeal, the more we are encouraging players to appeal for everything and to do so in a highly visible way that no one can miss. That can make for a fine line between an appeal and dissent. And it can make us look like we are letting players call the game.
Thanks - that's fair enoughIt would certainly be an overstatement to say never. But I also think there is a difference between watching for reactions and not doing without an actual appeal. Players aren't supposed to be appealing. I suppose level can also matter, too--at the professional level they appeal for almost everything, so I suppose the lack of an appeal means something. At lower levels it can mean the young player is polite and respecting the R or that the player doesn't know/understand that he was fouled. But the more we refuse to call without an appeal, the more we are encouraging players to appeal for everything and to do so in a highly visible way that no one can miss. That can make for a fine line between an appeal and dissent. And it can make us look like we are letting players call the game.
The call by the on field AR / team was offside. So VAR was simply confirming that call.The fact the GK had absolutely no chance of saving the header is unfortunately irrelevant, which makes the decision unfair. Again, irrelevant I know
Anyway, I'm not having and I don't think a 'light touch VAR' has any place getting involved
Not the first time I've been friendlessThe call by the on field AR / team was offside. So VAR was simply confirming that call.
I'm not with you on this one BC. The attacker's sole purpose in standing there is to distract / impede the keeper .. he's just made the mistake of doing so whilst in an offside position.
And whilst I would dearly love to see more dissent decisions in the EPL, for me this stays (just) on the side of a vigorous appeal rather than an unjustified rant