Somone explain how this is offside

[Sjb 11]

https://fb.watch/7GfZaIa7yk/

 

I don't understand where the air is between cantwell and their defender. VAR knew they messed up, as they usually/used to show the reasons for it on the screen 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

I think you are mistaken.

[city4eva 207]

Looks offside to me

[Heading South 24]

Cantwell was trying to be clever by standing directly in front of their keeper ….. therefore impeding his ability to defend his goal !

[Surfer 1,547]

Afraid he was…

[Virtual reality 706]

It’s offside. Great header though and the keeper wasn’t getting there. Only have ourselves to blame for that 

[Sjb 11]

How wasnt their number 27 playing him onside? 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Just now, Sjb said:

How wasnt their number 27 playing him onside? 

He wasn't. VAR is factual for offsides, like it or not.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

7 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

He wasn't. VAR is factual for offsides, like it or not.

I mean it was right today but it's not though is it? 

It's where the officials decide to draw the line and when they decide the ball has left the passing players foot. Pukki's goal against Spurs for example. They used the last frame possible and drew from a diagonal angle, when you're talking cm's it is actually impossible to tell from that angle. Right or wrong that wasn't factually onside or offside, so VAR isn't right all the time. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,020]

Just to get this correct, Todd was standing in front of the GK obstructing his line of vision which is deemed as offside, it has nothing to do with his position relative to the defender, had he stood anywhere else along the line of where he was standing and assuming he did not touch the ball on its way into the net, the goal would have stood.........

[Branston Pickle 3,638]

It’s actually not that clear - I’m far from convinced Cantwell was impeding the keeper and is therefore not active. And I speak as an ex keeper.  He was stood several yards away, the guy was never going to save it and it’s an excuse.

But it’s been given so it’s tough luck.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Branston Pickle

[The Bunny 305]

2 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I mean it was right today but it's not though is it? 

It's where the officials decide to draw the line and when they decide the ball has left the passing players foot. Pukki's goal against Spurs for example. They used the last frame possible and drew from a diagonal angle, when you're talking cm's it is actually impossible to tell from that angle. Right or wrong that wasn't factually onside or offside, so VAR isn't right all the time. 

I think that’s why they’re allowing a margin of error and erring in favour of the attacking player this season. That Pukki goal would definitely have been within the error margin.

[Matt Juler 148]

Very unusual for Todd to be in that position, he's normally edge of the box for corners. 

[Ian 1,129]

6 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

It’s actually not that clear - I’m far from convinced Cantwell was impeding the keeper and is therefore not active. And I speak as an ex keeper.  He was stood several yards away, the guy was never going to save it and it’s an excuse.

But it’s been given so it’s tough luck.

Agreed - the law says:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or 
• challenging an opponent for the ball

Not convinced either of those is true in the above clip. Put it this way, I'm not sure VAR would have over-ruled the linesman if he kept his flag down.

Edited August 28, 2021 by Ian

[Baracouda 47]

I can accept the var decision, because it appears the linesman gave the offside in the game. There isn't enough evidence to overrule it. But there are many decisions which are very subjective in terms of principle. The player is walking away from the goal, distance between him and the goalie. What is the line between impeding and not impeding. 

Bit like the var for liverpool penalty. For me, the ball hits his leg first. Therefore, not sure how it could ever been given as "deliberate" is beyond me. If your giving a penalty ok, i understand. But i don't understand why you need to give a red, when it's hit his leg first then arm. 

 

[curious yellow 184]

24 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think you are mistaken.

Then so is Farke, who said it was a VAR error. Cantwell has every right to stand where he does, Schmeichel could see the ball being taller. Strange defending from Leicester at that stage of the game and they were lucky to get away with it. 

I've seen some borderline decisions given but not against someone who didn't touch the ball. I can't see how a camera at an angle can be more accurate than a linesman in the right position. There have been so many overruled, it seems like they are almost looking for an excuse and an angle to disallow the goal.

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

I'm afraid this decision was an absolute monumental f**k up. The only reason it was given was because Schmeicel ran after the ref screaming and shouting and waving his arms about and the linesman shat himself. 

As Ian has said above, the law states "playing or being able to play the ball".  Schmeichel was never going to play that ball because Kenny headed it into the corner of the net at approximately 50 miles an hour from 7 yards away. Schmeichel would have had to be the bionic man to even get anywhere near it. 

And this isn't a case of yellow and green spectacles. I would never expect that goal to have been disallowed if it was scored against us. 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

1 minute ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

I'm afraid this decision was an absolute monumental f**k up. The only reason it was given was because Schmeicel ran after the ref screaming and shouting and waving his arms about and the linesman shat himself. 

As Ian has said above, the law states "playing or being able to play the ball".  Schmeichel was never going to play that ball because Kenny headed it into the corner of the net at approximately 50 miles an hour from 7 yards away. Schmeichel would have had to be the bionic man to even get anywhere near it. 

And this isn't a case of yellow and green spectacles. I would never expect that goal to have been disallowed if it was scored against us. 

It wouldn't have been disallowed 100%. It would have just been the opposition player being too strong or clever for Krul. This decision is debatable even though I think it was correct, but I am certain had it been the other way around the goal would have stood, no doubt in my mind at all about that. 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

11 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

It wouldn't have been disallowed 100%. It would have just been the opposition player being too strong or clever for Krul. This decision is debatable even though I think it was correct, but I am certain had it been the other way around the goal would have stood, no doubt in my mind at all about that. 

I honestly don't recall ever seeing a goal from a corner disallowed for this reason - ever - until today. 

 

[Baracouda 47]

Just now, Thirsty Lizard said:

I honestly don't recall ever seeing a goal from a corner disallowed for this reason - ever - until today. 

 

wait until we get the subtle "push" decision against us in the last minute. Even though it happens 10-20 times a match. 

[paddycanary 538]

While I understand the "logic" behind both VAR calls today, I'm probably in the minority here but...

If that penalty call was given against us, I'd have been very unhappy. Lees-Melou wasn't really going anywhere and while it was a bit of a clumsy challenge, it wasn't a penalty for me (of course, happy to go in level at half time.)

Then I thought the McLean header should have stood, a harsh call against Todd. 

I get the rules behind both decisions - maybe I'm a bit 'old-school!'

 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

11 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

wait until we get the subtle "push" decision against us in the last minute. Even though it happens 10-20 times a match. 

Watching it live from the South Stand I assumed that was what the original decision was. When I saw they were checking for offside I assumed that it must have hit Cantwell on the way into the net. 

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

It was the right call. I cannot believe Farke is moaning about it. The officiating was dross, but VAR got nothing wrong.

[Baracouda 47]

3 minutes ago, paddycanary said:

While I understand the "logic" behind both VAR calls today, I'm probably in the minority here but...

If that penalty call was given against us, I'd have been very unhappy. Lees-Melou wasn't really going anywhere and while it was a bit of a clumsy challenge, it wasn't a penalty for me (of course, happy to go in level at half time.)

Then I thought the McLean header should have stood, a harsh call against Todd. 

I get the rules behind both decisions - maybe I'm a bit 'old-school!'

 

i think you can argue that about any penalty decisions. The player is going nowhere but when you make a challenge and don't get the ball. It's a foul. 

Edited August 28, 2021 by Baracouda

[Thirsty Lizard 3,155]

10 minutes ago, Dr Greenthumb said:

It was the right call. I cannot believe Farke is moaning about it. The officiating was dross, but VAR got nothing wrong.

It was completely the wrong call. How can you prevent a player from 'playing the ball' if the chances of that player being able to play the ball are literally 0%? 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

It’s only offside if he is interfering with play. He’s only interfering with play if he is preventing the keeper from playing the ball or being able to attempt to play the ballot virtue of obscuring his view. I don’t accept that Schmeichel would have ever got anywhere near that header. 

[Dr Greenthumb 746]

Just now, Thirsty Lizard said:

It was completely the wrong call. How can you prevent a player from 'playing the ball' if the chances of that player being able to play the ball are literally 0%? 

It’s the line of vision. Cantwell obstructed it the whole time and when the connection was made, he was in an offside position. It was a great header and Schmeichel would never have saved it. But in modern day premier league football, that’s rules (unless you are a big club), due to the over protection of goalkeepers 

[Ken Hairy 3,760]

Absolutely nonsensical decision, Schmeical is getting nowhere near that header regardless of what Todd is doing. Utter utter disgrace of a decision. 

[Jim Smith 2,314]

26 minutes ago, Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB said:

Just to get this correct, Todd was standing in front of the GK obstructing his line of vision which is deemed as offside, it has nothing to do with his position relative to the defender, had he stood anywhere else along the line of where he was standing and assuming he did not touch the ball on its way into the net, the goal would have stood.........

It’s only offside if it prevents the goalkeeper from playing the ball or attempting to do so. He was rooted to the spot. 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,735]

Its bullsh!t ..if Cantwell had prevented Schmeichel from saving the ball you could understand it, but Schmeichel was in the centre of the goal and the ball was headed into the corner, he wasnt prevented from diving for it..

We've been had here