*****Official Match Thread v QPR*****

[kick it off 1,948]

Just now, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

It amounts to the same thing...cantwell was offside for the initial throughball...offside is offside

Unless of course it doesn't matter that he was in an offside position for the inital through ball as it wasn't played to him.

Please go and read the rules because it does not amount to the same thing, in fact it amounts to the polar opposite thing.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

10 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Thats how I read it.

You read it wrong 😁

[Jim Smith 2,314]

To be honest, regardless of the Cantwell goal we could and should have won that if we hadn’t just stopped playing as soon as we went one up and tried to sit on a one goal lead. We know this team can’t defend properly and we are markedly better on the front foot. We didn’t try and get a second and we got what we deserved. 

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

5 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

So if a player is standing offside on the 6 line yard line...but an initial ball isnt played through to him...however a ball is then subsequently played across to him and he scores....people are trying to say he wouldnt be offside??.....I dont think so

He's behind Pukki, the original ball is irrelevant as he's got himself onside when Pukki passes. 

Come on dude, this really isn't hard 🥴

[Ian 1,129]

11 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Not quite...if the lineman flagged when Cantwell put the ball in the net, it could be because he then became active from being offside for the initual throughball...not from the pass from Pukki

Had he been considered offside from the initial pass, that is where the offence would have occurred and where the free kick would have been awarded.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

3 minutes ago, kick it off said:

Unless of course it doesn't matter that he was in an offside position for the inital through ball as it wasn't played to him.

Please go and read the rules because it does not amount to the same thing, in fact it amounts to the polar opposite thing.

I literally feel like banging my head against my wall that GJL and Ricky aren't getting this, it's more frustrating than the referees actual performance 😂

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Is that what happened?

Basically that is what the law says. If he was in an offside position and the ball is passed to him by a team mate he is offside. Interpret that at your will. The Ref and his assistant interpreted that way it seems.

But some decisions go against you and some like Max Tom Daley Aarons go in your favour.

We are surrounded by opinions like "there was contact" or "he anticipated the foul". They are all meaningless. In any game its down to the coaches, players and officials.

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, Ken Hairy said:

I literally feel like banging my head against my wall that GJL and Ricky aren't getting this, it's more frustrating than the referees actual performance 😂

You are equally frustrating. Quid pro quo.

[kirku 1,332]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

You are equally frustrating. Quid pro quo.

The main difference is that he's right

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

You are equally frustrating. Quid pro quo.

Thats it I'm throwing myself off the roof 😂

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Its funny how we can have opinions but the ref can't.

Also he gets stick for a decision but the loudest noises at the moment cannot bring themselves to criticise the coach and team who got it wrong so many  times.

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

7 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

If when the ball is subsequently played to him he had got back onside, then absolutely he wouldn't be offside.

I genuinely don't get what the issue is here. I know it's not always nice to say you got it wrong, but to double down like this is bizarre.

The pertinent (is pertinent a bit too patronising @Disco Dales Jockstrap?) questions are; 

When the ball was played to Pukki, was Pukki offside?

When the ball was played to Cantwell, was Cantwell offside?

That's it. That's what matters in accordance with the rules. Cantwell could literally have been standing in front of the keeper when the ball was played to Pukki. If he had then got back onside by being behind Pukki when the ball was played to him, he would not have been offside.

Yeah, this is pretty basic stuff.

The only thing I'm not certain about is whether Pukki was offside when the ball was originally flicked through. Not seen any evidence either way on that so far.

Anyone still thinking that Cantwell could possibly have been offside from the graphic previously shown needs to go and read the laws again.

[ricardo 7,349]

You learn something every day. Good job I wasn't the lino else I would have flagged him too.😀😉

[Grumpy 122]

Why didn't the ref give a yellow card to Ball for his penalty against Cantwell.It would have been his second of the night having got a booking just minutes before the penalty.Zimmermann received a yellow for his penalty foul.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Thats it I'm throwing myself off the roof 😂

I bet you'll blame the ground for hurting you.

[ricardo 7,349]

Just now, Feedthewolf said:

Yeah, this is pretty basic stuff.

The only thing I'm not certain about is whether Pukki was offside when the ball was originally flicked through. Not seen any evidence either way on that so far.

Anyone still thinking that Cantwell could possibly have been offside from the graphic previously shown needs to go and read the laws again.

Pukki was certainly onside.

[Pockthorpe 530]

11 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

So if a player is standing offside on the 6 line yard line...but an initial ball isnt played through to him...however a ball is then subsequently played across to him and he scores....people are trying to say he wouldnt be offside??.....I dont think so

OMG .

It wasn’t offside and should’ve been given a goal . That’s it . I don’t understand the arguments against that applying CURRENT football rules . It wasn’t given , sh*t happens . Don’t really think it was that close a decision for the officials . 
Whether we’d have carried on and won the game , who knows . Got to say very very likely we would’ve done . 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, Grumpy said:

Why didn't the ref give a yellow card to Ball for his penalty against Cantwell.It would have been his second of the night having got a booking just minutes before the penalty.Zimmermann received a yellow for his penalty foul.

Now that was definitely wrong.

[Ian 1,129]

9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

To be honest, regardless of the Cantwell goal we could and should have won that if we hadn’t just stopped playing as soon as we went one up and tried to sit on a one goal lead. We know this team can’t defend properly and we are markedly better on the front foot. We didn’t try and get a second and we got what we deserved. 

With all due respect Jim, that is pretty nonsensical. That goal could equally have given us a major lift and meant we had gone on to make changes and pick QPR off comfortably on the break. As it is, we will never know.

Aside from that, I am confused by the argument that we should be winning games even if goals/pens/free kicks we have earnt aren't awarded. In the case, how many legitimate goals being ruled out does it take for it to become relevant? 2? 3? 4?

Say we had 5 goals chalked off for offside when they weren't - would we still be getting what we deserved?

[kirku 1,332]

4 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Thats it I'm throwing myself off the roof 😂

Make sure you get yourself back behind the opposition otherwise it won't count

[ricardo 7,349]

Just now, keelansgrandad said:

Now that was definitely wrong.

Surely not😉

[Feedthewolf 4,844]

Just now, ricardo said:

Pukki was certainly onside.

I'll take your word for it, Ricky! As it was iFollow, I don't have the luxury of replays to watch. He certainly didn't appear to be offside, but I've got nothing to go on but my original instinct.

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

The pertinent (is pertinent a bit too patronising @Disco Dales Jockstrap?) questions are; 

Thanks for checking with me Dan, top man.

Yes, your use of 'pertinent' is fine on this occasion.

Please feel free to call on me if you have difficulty with any other words.

OTBC

[Pukki Blinders 96]

When the initial ball is played through to Pukki from Vrancic, whether Cantwell is on or offside at that point is completely irrelevant, because Cantwell is not interfering with play.

What happens next is essentially an entirely separate piece of play. 

Pukki then runs with the ball, and passes it across goal to Cantwell, which is where the lino has flagged. The linesman is flagging because he believes Cantwell is offside from Pukki's pass, even though replays and freeze-frames clearly show he isn't. The fact Cantwell was offside in the build-up was irrelevant, because he doesn't become an active part of the play until Pukki cuts it across to him, by which point he's onside 

Ultimately, we went 1-0 up anyway, but it is frustrating how poor the standard of officiating is in this league.

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

3 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I bet you'll blame the ground for hurting you.

Nope because by the laws of gravity it'll be my fault, same as by the offside laws.... CANTWELLS GOAL SHOULD HAVE STOOD!!!! 

 

Anyway work for me at 6am, so ill depart now and allow you the time to study the rules for the next game 😉

[ricardo 7,349]

1 minute ago, Pukki Blinders said:

When the initial ball is played through to Pukki from Vrancic, whether Cantwell is on or offside at that point is completely irrelevant, because Cantwell is not interfering with play.

What happens next is essentially an entirely separate piece of play. 

Pukki then runs with the ball, and passes it across goal to Cantwell, which is where the lino has flagged. The linesman is flagging because he believes Cantwell is offside from Pukki's pass, even though replays and freeze-frames clearly show he isn't. The fact Cantwell was offside in the build-up was irrelevant, because he doesn't become an active part of the play until Pukki cuts it across to him, by which point he's onside 

Ultimately, we went 1-0 up anyway, but it is frustrating how poor the standard of officiating is in this league.

Many thanks for the concise clarification. I now lower my flag and signal a goal.😀

[nutty nigel 7,513]

2 minutes ago, Pockthorpe said:

OMG .

It wasn’t offside and should’ve been given a goal . That’s it . I don’t understand the arguments against that applying CURRENT football rules . It wasn’t given , sh*t happens . Don’t really think it was that close a decision for the officials . 
Whether we’d have carried on and won the game , who knows . Got to say very very likely we would’ve done . 

👍👍👍

It's best to try and remember how it was when we could go. Defending a ref at all costs to criticise your own is alien to me.

[Jim Smith 2,314]

2 minutes ago, Ian said:

With all due respect Jim, that is pretty nonsensical. That goal could equally have given us a major lift and meant we had gone on to make changes and pick QPR off comfortably on the break. As it is, we will never know.

Aside from that, I am confused by the argument that we should be winning games even if goals/pens/free kicks we have earnt aren't awarded. In the case, how many legitimate goals being ruled out does it take for it to become relevant? 2? 3? 4?

Say we had 5 goals chalked off for offside when they weren't - would we still be getting what we deserved?

Not saying it would not have been different had the Todd goal stood but what I am saying is having gone knew up and been completely and utterly dominant it it was ridiculous that we just stopped trying to attack and clearly settled for trying to see out the game 1-0 and that flawed approach (along with the inexplicable selection of a CB who was also a liability at Watford) cost us. There was a moment where we had a really good counter attacking situation and Cantwell got the ball and just stopped and went backwards and you knew from that moment we had let the momentum shift.

we cannot defend properly so we need to start putting games to bed properly before we start show boating or coasting in games. Tonight it cost us 2 points that could prove very Important. 

[CDMullins 436]

6 minutes ago, Ian said:

With all due respect Jim, that is pretty nonsensical. That goal could equally have given us a major lift and meant we had gone on to make changes and pick QPR off comfortably on the break. As it is, we will never know.

Aside from that, I am confused by the argument that we should be winning games even if goals/pens/free kicks we have earnt aren't awarded. In the case, how many legitimate goals being ruled out does it take for it to become relevant? 2? 3? 4?

Say we had 5 goals chalked off for offside when they weren't - would we still be getting what we deserved?

Didn't we still go 1 up and have chance to make changes and pick QPR apart? 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,738]

 

...why dont teams leave a striker on the opposition's six yard line all game...and just make sure the initial throughball isnt played to him...