New money vs old money

[es1]

The PL tweeted that the AR gave the Sterling goal as offside and that VAR merely upheld his decision. This is fine, but I don't remember the SKY commentators suggesting that the flag had been raised and I didn't see Sterling disappointed until the VAR decision had been made. For those at the game, when did the AR flag?

I sit in that corner.

Goal was scored ref and AR immediately I'm conversation about something but no flag raised.

Some time later (at least 30 seconds after the goal) while speaking with ref in close proximity the AR raises then lowers his flag very quickly.

A few seconds later the goal disallowed.

The goal was given. I don't see how anyone else can claim or say otherwise.

Yet another farce

 

[es1]

45 seconds after Sterling was "offside", after a long discussion with Mr Atkinson on the touchline. No idea what he said, but his flag didn't go up at the time. Do I take at face value what the PL tweets? No.

It's an awful tweet. Everyone watching knows the opposite happened. Lying or getting it wrong so obviously is damaging VAR.

 

[RustyRef]

I saw a level 4 penalise a keeper for parrying a ball that was going out and then picked it up. No one was expecting it, the decision shocked everyone and he lost control of the game from that point on.

For the offside, they have been clear that no matter how minimal the distance is they will give offside if the attacker is even slightly ahead of the defender. Whether that is right or not is up for debate, but they can't change it midseason as other teams have already lost goals over such tight decisions.

 

[Big Cat]

It's an awful tweet. Everyone watching knows the opposite happened. Lying or getting it wrong so obviously is damaging VAR.

This tweet is a lie. Simple as

 

[JamesL]

Didn't we have a brilliant example of the law on here where one of the keepers caught a ball in the air and dropped it, only to pick it up again and the IFAB via email said it wasn't an offence?

It was a good topic I think.

Better to give a warning first if it does happen, since it's so unusual an offence that you'll have a job explaining it if you punish it.

Yes. I wanted to recall on that too.

 

[socal lurker]

I think the way the IFAB wants this to be treated can be inferred from the change they made to this part of the law (and accompanying explanation) in 2018. The removal of the word "accidentally" and the way they explain it suggests to me that they don't really want keepers punished for picking the ball up again after parrying it to the ground, even if it wasn't accidental.

View attachment 3883

Nice catch.

 

[AlexF]

Another talking point was a breakaway near the end of the first half - Aguero to Silva who passed to Sterling who let it go out for a goal kick because he thought he was offside. We were at the far end but I told my son that was stupid - and it was: Sterling was onside.

How is this a talking point AT ALL?

This is something that happens all the time. Players looks, believe that they're offside and let the play go.

If you want to talk about this crap in a fannish way, please, go find a Man City fan site.

 

[bloovee]

If VAR wasn't there, would Sterling have played the ball, thinking that even if he was offside, the AR might get it wrong? There you go, not such a crap point.

 

[one]

If VAR wasn't there, would Sterling have played the ball, thinking that even if he was offside, the AR might get it wrong? There you go, not such a crap point.

Just stupidity form Sterling (regardless of VAR). Even if he 100% knows he is offside, he should want to give an IFK away instead of a goal kick.

 

[Matthew]

It's an awful tweet. Everyone watching knows the opposite happened. Lying or getting it wrong so obviously is damaging VAR.

Do they honestly expect people to buy that? The AR raised his flag for what seemed like about a second after a long conversation with Atkinson whilst the VAR check was taking place. The goal was given on the field.

 

[QuaverRef]

If VAR wasn't there, would Sterling have played the ball, thinking that even if he was offside, the AR might get it wrong? There you go, not such a crap point.

Play to the whistle. Every man and his dog knows that

 

[Ben448844]

I saw a level 4 penalise a keeper for parrying a ball that was going out and then picked it up. No one was expecting it, the decision shocked everyone and he lost control of the game from that point on.

For the offside, they have been clear that no matter how minimal the distance is they will give offside if the attacker is even slightly ahead of the defender. Whether that is right or not is up for debate, but they can't change it midseason as other teams have already lost goals over such tight decisions.

Whether it was offside or not is not in question imo. It was offside and was rightly chalked off (City fan here). It was the process that's questionable. No flag is raised immediately after the goal. In fact, there's no flag raised until a considerable time later whilst the AR is talking to Atkinson. He then raised the flag for offside and then immediately puts it down. Surely if the decision was offside after the VAR review, the flag would be raised for more than a split second like it was. The flag had been raised and put down before Atkinson confirmed that it was offside too. It was just odd. Not a conspiracy against City, not an incorrect decision even, it was all just very weird and I can't make sense of it still. To cap it off, the PL released a statement on Twitter saying that the goal was given as offside by the AR on the field and that this was upheld by the referee. But this wasn't the case! It was way after the goal had gone in and the officials had been in communication with themselves and the VAR team that the flag was raised and brought back down immediately as early described. It was a complete mess and I can't understand the thought process behind it all.

Most importantly, the correct decision under the current laws was reached, so we got there in the end. But the process was odd to say the least

 

[Grayson]

Flagging as extra communication to crowd/bench after VAR had ruled out? (Not seen it). City haven't got a screen have they?

 

[es1]

Flagging as extra communication to crowd/bench after VAR had ruled out? (Not seen it). City haven't got a screen have they?

City have several screens

The flagging came before and after the goal was confirmed as disallowed by VAR

 

[Ben448844]

Flagging as extra communication to crowd/bench after VAR had ruled out? (Not seen it). City haven't got a screen have they?

It was the quickest flag possible. Almost like he did it and then realised he shouldn't and out it straight down again. But he's been talking to Atkinson so it looked like he was told to do it. Someone will find the clip on the internet I'm sure.

 

[es1]

It was the quickest flag possible. Almost like he did it and then realised he shouldn't and out it straight down again. But he's been talking to Atkinson so it looked like he was told to do it. Someone will find the clip on the internet I'm sure.

Exactly what I thought, raising the flag and putting it down made me think the ref immediately told ar to put it down

 

[bloovee]

Whether it was offside or not is not in question imo. It was offside and was rightly chalked off (City fan here). It was the process that's questionable. No flag is raised immediately after the goal. In fact, there's no flag raised until a considerable time later whilst the AR is talking to Atkinson. He then raised the flag for offside and then immediately puts it down. Surely if the decision was offside after the VAR review, the flag would be raised for more than a split second like it was. The flag had been raised and put down before Atkinson confirmed that it was offside too. It was just odd. Not a conspiracy against City, not an incorrect decision even, it was all just very weird and I can't make sense of it still. To cap it off, the PL released a statement on Twitter saying that the goal was given as offside by the AR on the field and that this was upheld by the referee. But this wasn't the case! It was way after the goal had gone in and the officials had been in communication with themselves and the VAR team that the flag was raised and brought back down immediately as early described. It was a complete mess and I can't understand the thought process behind it all.

Most importantly, the correct decision under the current laws was reached, so we got there in the end. But the process was odd to say the least

I have to ask why you think it was offside. On the pics published, the defender's shoulder appears to be as much over the "line" as Sterling's, and there is no way that pic is "at the moment the ball is played".
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EKFXU19XUAEedAr?format=jpg&name=small

 

[Peter Grove]

If VAR wasn't there, would Sterling have played the ball, thinking that even if he was offside, the AR might get it wrong? There you go, not such a crap point.

That makes no logical sense whatsoever to me. A player thinking they might or might not be offside can have nothing to do with whether there's a VAR. He either thinks he's offside or he doesn't.

Knowing that there's a VAR just means he knows that whatever decision the AR makes, the VAR will be able to determine definitively whether he was or wasn't in fact, offside. It doesn't (or certainly shouldn't) affect whether he thinks he's eligible to play the ball or not.

 

[Sam_C]

That makes no logical sense whatsoever to me.

You've never seen a player try to grab a throw-in/corner/goal-kick that clearly came off them? You've never seen a player do something cynical hoping the referee misses it? Here's my point, and it revolves around the fact that these players are professionals who know they can not deceive VAR on a reviewable play: VAR should never miss an offside here, so in Sterling's mind, he gains nothing from trying to deceive the referees by playing on because he knows he is offside. He makes that decision even though he is wrong, which is why playing on is the correct choice as a player, and why you think he made an illogical decision, you're right that it's illogical, but you're wrong in thinking that VAR is not playing a role in what a player does. Knowing VAR is on a game absolutely affects the way the player's play, just as knowing the referee in the middle is lazy and unaware will lead to a game spiraling out of control (assuming the players are not saints).

P.S. I'm jumping in without context on the original argument, so I'm only addressing your post directly.

 

[one]

What is it about City fans that makes them think if a butterfly flaps its wings in Brazil it's because it want Man City to lose.