Everton vs City

[bloovee]

As far as I recall they said at the time that VAR had checked and there was no offside.

Pep said it was offside, Lampard said he'd been told it wasn't but may just have been told that it wasn't considered because it wasn't handball (so wasn't checked). I don't think "they" said it had even been checked.

So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, my current stance is "All this fuss, and it was offside anyway."

 

[Anubis]

Pep said it was offside, Lampard said he'd been told it wasn't but may just have been told that it wasn't considered because it wasn't handball (so wasn't checked). I don't think "they" said it had even been checked.

So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, my current stance is "All this fuss, and it was offside anyway."

Did Riley not ( according to Everton) apologise for the non award of the penalty?

something he would not do if the correct decision was indeed offside.

 

[bloovee]

Did Riley not ( according to Everton) apologise for the non award of the penalty?

something he would not do if the correct decision was indeed offside.

How would he know if it was offside? (And - I'll anticipate a reply - if it was checked at the time, or since, why hasn't he clarified that it wasn't offside?) Perhaps the only way we'll know for sure is if City demand an apology for the AR's mistake.

(PS With the apology, what happened to "the referee's decision is final"?)

 

[Anubis]

How would he know if it was offside? (And - I'll anticipate a reply - if it was checked at the time, or since, why hasn't he clarified that it wasn't offside?) Perhaps the only way we'll know for sure is if City demand an apology for the AR's mistake.

(PS With the apology, what happened to "the referee's decision is final"?)

Am quite sure the background will have been clarified before making such a claim ( if they were the words used) that Everton were denied a penalty

Had the offside been the correct outcome, surely ( and again we only have Evertons side) would be "We have been told but for the offside, a penalty kick woud have been awarded"

if we are trusting the published Everton side of the call, Riley has missed the chance to defuse the whole thing, and, in todays world of spin and deflection, thats simply unrealistic, The get out of jail card was/is there, and if relevant, would have been used

perfect pr, keeping everybody happy, would have been " but for the offside a pk would have been awarded"

that way, Everton get the explaination they asked for, without Riley having to confess to a huge blunder, and we all move on.

 

[bloovee]

Am quite sure the background will have been clarified before making such a claim ( if they were the words used) that Everton were denied a penalty

Had the offside been the correct outcome, surely ( and again we only have Evertons side) would be "We have been told but for the offside, a penalty kick woud have been awarded"

if we are trusting the published Everton side of the call, Riley has missed the chance to defuse the whole thing, and, in todays world of spin and deflection, thats simply unrealistic, The get out of jail card was/is there, and if relevant, would have been used

perfect pr, keeping everybody happy, would have been " but for the offside a pk would have been awarded"

that way, Everton get the explaination they asked for, without Riley having to confess to a huge blunder, and we all move on.

I agree entirely - if it was (edited!) offside that would be perfect PR. So was it offside or are they just bad at PR?

 

[Anubis]

I agree entirely - if it wasn't offside that would be perfect PR. So was it offside or are they just bad at PR?

Thats the million dollar question, we would need the actual call to find out, knowing how these thngs go, its probable Riley said, but for the offside...

yet thats not the scandal we wish to hear, it does no good to Everton, so, gets missed out.

 

[socal lurker]

If it was checked by the VAR it was an error in process. The only reason for the VAR to check would be if a PK was being awarded or a goal had been scored.

 

[Joshref]

You can hardly call City the victim here, and I'm not.

I'm just saying that if it wasn't City benefitting it wouldn't have had all this hyperbole about worst VAR decision ever. I've already posted about worse ones (Plymouth in the cup last year and the Dawson goal).

Weirdly what came up for me when I typed in worst VAR decision. Maybe the media like a focus on referees and don’t focus on one club?

 

[bloovee]

Given the reluctance to find any onfield decision to be a clear and obvious error, I'm sure that the worst VAR decision in history is likely to be one that VAR declared to be a clear and obvious error that clearly and obviously wasn't.

 

[Mooseybaby]

FFS! Here we go again, yet another thread dragged down the "City are victims of a witch-hunt/conspiracy" path!

 

[RobOda]

Maybe the media like a focus on referees and don’t focus on one club?

I don't like compilations like that as they're just rage bait, and it's always "They haven't a clue" comments coming, ironically or otherwise by pundits who, genuinely don't have a clue.