Man Utd vs Man City

[es1]

No, they have deemed it a deliberate attempt to play the ball by the UTD defender, so everything resets (new phase)

No they haven't

 

[lincs22]

3) Maguire can't just grab and then push Enzo to the floor like that off the ball in frustration for him diving. That's a penalty!

Yes, they can - it was Enzo so anything is allowed

 

[JD1]

They've deemed that as a deliberate play? Where has that been mentioned. I can't see how that's a deliberate play myself.

That was where the line was drawn on TV to determine the offside position and what was keeping Haaland and Fernandez onside

Its an obvious deflection, hence why the Lino puts his flag up

 

[es1]

Yes, they can - it was Enzo so anything is allowed

Not anymore!

 

[Trip]

Enzo onside but doesn't touch it

Nevertheless his attempt to pay the ball negatively impacts an opponent. Look at the GK's movement - he is initially reacting to a possible header and then turns his attention to Halaand. Without the danger of the header he would have been able to set up for Halaand much earlier.

(I was a GK.)

 

[JD1]

No they haven't

Well they drew a line at the UTD defenders point of contact (foot)

If thats another screw up I don't know, but There can't be any other explanation

They were both miles offside when the ball was played, you can say Enzo was not interfering but then how does Haaland stay onside? He was offside when the ball was delivered

 

[JamesL]

That was where the line was drawn on TV to determine the offside position and what was keeping Haaland and Fernandez onside

Its an obvious deflection, hence why the Lino puts his flag up

Why would they draw the line at a play by a defender?

They drew the line as the man city player crossed the ball as that is the point offside position is judged. They need this point to determine Haaland position and then when Haaland was offside they moved to the potential play.

If was a guessing man I'd guess they have looked with laser focus at whether he touched it, and then not looked at the impact of his action.

 

[JD1]

Nevertheless his attempt to pay the ball negatively impacts an opponent. Look at the GK's movement - he is initially reacting to a possible header and then turns his attention to Halaand. Without the danger of the header he would have been able to set up for Halaand much earlier.

(I was a GK.)

If it was deemed a deliberate play from the defender then Enzo is onside

 

[JamesL]

Well they drew a line at the UTD defenders point of contact (foot)

If thats another screw up I don't know, but There can't be any other explanation

They were both miles offside when the ball was played, you can say Enzo was not interfering but then how does Haaland stay onside? He was offside when the ball was delivered

Ah you are misreading the visual.

They draw the line at the defenders foot as that is the "onside line" at the point the ball is played.

Haaland is onside due to Dorgu's outstretched leg. Only Fernandez is in an offside position.

 

[JamesL]

If it was deemed a deliberate play from the defender then Enzo is onside

It is absolutely not a deliberate play.

 

[JD1]

Why would they draw the line at a play by a defender?

They drew the line as the man city player crossed the ball as that is the point offside position is judged. They need this point to determine Haaland position and then when Haaland was offside they moved to the potential play.

If was a guessing man I'd guess they have looked with laser focus at whether he touched it, and then not looked at the impact of his action.

trying to explain their **** up? I don't know

But Haaland is offside when the ball is initially delivered so that is the only way he can be deemed onside

 

[JamesL]

trying to explain their **** up? I don't know

But Haaland is offside when the ball is initially delivered so that is the only way he can be deemed onside

He is not..the semi automated visual proves he was in an onside position. Which is why the goal has been awarded.

To understand what's happend.

1 AR has indicated that Haaland is offside.

2 This is disproved by the SAOT.

3 They then make a judgment that Fernandez has not played the ball or interfered with an opponent.

4 Goal awarded.

It is point 3 where the questions arise from.

 

[dadofref]

No, they have deemed it a deliberate attempt to play the ball by the UTD defender, so everything resets (new phase)

Enzo onside but doesn't touch it

Haaland onside at point of contact from Utd defender

But he's only trying to play the ball because Enzo - who was offside - is right there next to him...?

 

[JD1]

He is not..the semi automated visual proves he was in an onside position. Which is why the goal has been awarded.

To understand what's happend.

1 AR has indicated that Haaland is offside.

2 This is disproved by the SAOT.

3 They then make a judgment that Fernandez has not played the ball or interfered with an opponent.

4 Goal awarded.

It is point 3 where the questions arise from.

Watching it back on the tv now and it still doesnt look right, on the visual hes on and then the camera angle from the side he looks way off

Maybe its the angle

Regardless to say Enzo isn't interfering is equally mad.

 

[JamesL]

Watching it back on the tv now and it still doesnt look right, on the visual hes on and then the camera angle from the side he looks way off

Maybe its the angle

Regardless to say Enzo isn't interfering is equally mad.

Camera angle changes perception. That's why as an AR it is imperative to be in line and not have angles distortion your perception.
To be honest I was pretty certain he was onside from the broadcast view, adding a mental allowance for the angle.

 

[Goldfish]

This was not VARs decision to make. Enzo has to be assessed for interfering with an opponent. So the referee should have been sent to the monitor. To do that.

 

[dadofref]

This was not VARs decision to make. Enzo has to be assessed for interfering with an opponent. So the referee should have been sent to the monitor. To do that.

Apologies from Howard Webb incoming

 

[David F]

He is not..the semi automated visual proves he was in an onside position. Which is why the goal has been awarded.

To understand what's happend.

1 AR has indicated that Haaland is offside.

2 This is disproved by the SAOT.

3 They then make a judgment that Fernandez has not played the ball or interfered with an opponent.

4 Goal awarded.

It is point 3 where the questions arise from.

Interesting one, as I am assuming that if the on-field team had indicated that the offside offence was against Enzo, then would it have had to be a C&O error to overturn and the original call would have stood…

 

[RustyRef]

I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. The post on the PL Match Centre says Fernandez isn't offside as he didn't touch the ball, but him being there in an offside position certain impacts Martinez and arguably also the keeper. If Fernandez wasn't there Martinez could have moved across to Haaland, he's just said that himself. Also the keeper can't move across to better block Haaland as he has to assume that Fernandez might head it on goal. Plus, as has been said, it was very subjective so I don't see why there wasn't an on field review. Fully expect there to be an apology from Howard Webb.

No problem with the red card, its a clearly violent action to kick someone in the stomach like that. I didn't see anything that Fernandes did that could be classified as using excessive force or brutality, but it is poor that he wasn't cautioned.

Also, Michael Oliver was hit by the ball four times in this game. Wonder if that is a record, I can't remember seeing that happen before.

 

[bloovee]

He is not..the semi automated visual proves he was in an onside position. Which is why the goal has been awarded.

To understand what's happend.

1 AR has indicated that Haaland is offside.

2 This is disproved by the SAOT.

3 They then make a judgment that Fernandez has not played the ball or interfered with an opponent.

4 Goal awarded.

It is point 3 where the questions arise from.

Correct.

Once Haaland is shown to be in an onside position, the only argument is interpretation of whether Enzo is

• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

We've had plenty of instances where it's been agreed that merely wondering about what an opponent in an offside position might do is not enough to qualify as "impact" (e.g. on a GK 10m away). It's just Sky making more of it than they should.