Wolves vs City
- Thread starter WillH
- Start date
one
RefChat Addict
I think the issue many people have regardless of what the laws say (and some are oblivious to it) is that they want this to be offside because the impact of his actions while in offside position but not committing an offence, was still active (not him but the impact) at a time it would have been considered an offence.
I had to read that 5 times to make sure I wrote what I meant (unlike Xie)
I had to read that 5 times to make sure I wrote what I meant (unlike Xie)
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
one
RefChat Addict
The only time I use that is when I do algebra
Gary O'Neill's comments have been presented as somehow the permissible face of what he really wanted to say, but accusing referees of unconscious bias is not a small claim in my eyes. We really have entered dangerous territory whereby referees/PGMOL are traduced as the scapegoats for a change in relationship between fan and product. When there was distance from detail, inconsistency and contingency were tolerated. With VAR and social media, such tolerance has been extinguished. I don't think there is a cure, as even automated decisions without human referees would throw up variance. The random nature of the game has been exposed like never before. Those are my two cents anyway.
I did wonder what Exxy meant and failed to make the linkCalled him Exxy on the games thread and think I got away with it
I think I know what you mean! But if buffeting the GK at a corner was an offence, surely someone would already have had words about when two attackers do it at once.
You may have to cut and paste - direct link is not allowed: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fX1-oKm1qXw&t=62s
Last edited:
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Totally disagree. The R is in position to see if the attacker was blocking line of sight—it’s his miss, not the AR’s miss, as the AR doesn’t have the angle to see if the attacker is blocking the GK’s vision. In any game, the AR and R should be communicating. The AR should be telling the R that the attacker was in OSP, and the R should be deciding if that blocked the GK’s vision. With comms, that’s a convo over the comms, and without them, it’s time for the AR and R to get together for a quick chat on the touchline.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I would agree that both the R and the AR each have a half piece of the jigsaw and in their pre-match instructions this is often covered as such. However, in my experience, in very similar situations (though not exactly), the Referee would consider that there was sufficient evidence that the attacker within the goal area was interfering. The same Referee may have considered the same had there not been VAR. We will never know.
Last edited:
So when exactly was the goal disallowed?
The AR has disappeared on the sunny side but CK isn't signalling, whistling, or otherwise looking to give an offside decision.
It's still very odd.
The AR has disappeared on the sunny side but CK isn't signalling, whistling, or otherwise looking to give an offside decision.
It's still very odd.
MOTD 2 analysis: Theo Walcott on Manchester City winner against Wolves
Watch Match of the Day 2 pundits Danny Murphy, Rafa Benitez and Theo Walcott question whether the Wolves players should have protested more quickly against John Stones' contested late winner for Manchester City.
www.bbc.co.uk
Equally though why is the AR stood completely still, that isn't the natural reaction when a goal has been scored? There must have been communication going on and that, eventually, leads to the flag being raised.So when exactly was the goal disallowed?
The AR has disappeared on the sunny side but CK isn't signalling, whistling, or otherwise looking to give an offside decision.
It's still very odd.
MOTD 2 analysis: Theo Walcott on Manchester City winner against Wolves
Watch Match of the Day 2 pundits Danny Murphy, Rafa Benitez and Theo Walcott question whether the Wolves players should have protested more quickly against John Stones' contested late winner for Manchester City.www.bbc.co.uk
