Chelsea Vs Arsenal

You couldn't make it up

bester said:

You couldn't make it up

https://twitter.com/x/status/2011533706352345206

Click to expand...

Perhaps that's exactly what Dale did, make it up? Or at least see a potentially similar incident tonight dealt with differently, although in reality they were very different, and make the inference / assumption that PGMO have made some kind of directive. I'd find it very hard to believe that if they were going to issue any kind of directive it would be in the middle of two semi-finals in the same competition, they'd wait until tomorrow.

Plus we know they don't deliver these instructions / directives by email, they are done at training get togethers, and there's zero chance that Hooper and team were at one of those today.

Conspiracies aside, both were offside for me. There reason the Arsenal one was not given by AR or VAR is an error by both. Had it not been for the Arsenal player, Chelsea defender had a relatively easy chance of clearing the ball

one said:

Conspiracies aside, both were offside for me. There reason the Arsenal one was not given by AR or VAR is an error by both. Had it not been for the Arsenal player, Chelsea defender had a relatively easy chance of clearing the ball.

Click to expand...

In my view, the Chelsea 38 is not looking at the ball, so has no chance of clearing the ball.

This is on Chelsea for the most bizarre/worst defending at a corner you could imagine.

one said:

View attachment 8504

Click to expand...

RustyRef said:

Perhaps that's exactly what Dale did, make it up? Or at least see a potentially similar incident tonight dealt with differently, although in reality they were very different, and make the inference / assumption that PGMO have made some kind of directive. I'd find it very hard to believe that if they were going to issue any kind of directive it would be in the middle of two semi-finals in the same competition, they'd wait until tomorrow.

Plus we know they don't deliver these instructions / directives by email, they are done at training get togethers, and there's zero chance that Hooper and team were at one of those today.

Click to expand...

I hope Dale is wrong but I suspect he's not because we all know from past experience that Howard Webb only cares about the stakeholders/people in the game over the laws of the game so it would not surprise me in the slightest if he instructed his VAR if anything similar occurs then stick with the on field decision.

The controversy in the city game came from mainly how long it took for them to make a decision, whether that was down to the SAOT or the VAR struggling to place the lines down I don't know but it should not be a reason to ignore the laws of the game just because it might be a tad complicated getting to the decision or fans/pundits not realising an offside offense has occured.

DJIC said:

In my view, the Chelsea 38 is not looking at the ball, so has no chance of clearing the ball.

Click to expand...

Interesting point. My counter argument would be to ask why is he not looking at the ball?

one said:

Interesting point. My counter argument would be to ask why is he not looking at the ball?

Click to expand...

Because it is the modern way of defending set pieces, they are more interested in looking at their opponent to make sure they don't get away from them. I just don't see how he had any chance of blocking the header when he wasn't looking at the ball.

RustyRef said:

Because it is the modern way of defending set pieces, they are more interested in looking at their opponent to make sure they don't get away from them. I just don't see how he had any chance of blocking the header when he wasn't looking at the ball.

Click to expand...

I assume we agree if the defender was looking at the ball this would be offside. I also assume this would be using the challenge for the ball clause even if the defender doesn't attempt to playe the ball likely due to being blocked by the attacker.

Another assumption is we agree the ball goes within playing distance of both.

The way I interpret the law looking at the ball is not a determining factor. In either case the looking at the opponent is 'induced' by the offside oppoent being there and very importantly being in physical contact with the defender.

one said:

I assume we agree if the defender was looking at the ball this would be offside. I also assume this would be using the challenge for the ball clause even if the defender doesn't attempt to playe the ball likely due to being blocked by the attacker.

Another assumption is we agree the ball goes within playing distance of both.

The way I interpret the law looking at the ball is not a determining factor. In either case the looking at the opponent is 'induced' by the offside oppoent being there and very importantly being in physical contact with the defender.

Click to expand...

If he was looking at the ball then I'd agree he had a chance to play it and that makes it more of an offside offence. But he wasn't, and wasn't in the entire move, he was only interested in the attacker he was marking. I just think there would be a total lack of credibility, especially with non-referees, to give offside for this. Whether they would have got involved had the previous evening's events not happened only PGMO will know.