Jump to content
Capt. Pants

****The Official Lapps Match Thread v Arsenal ****

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Strawman. Who said that? The last touch was from Pepe as it squirmed across, so you need to check where Aubameyang is at that point. He was half-a-yard on.

The offside rule is a mess, and I'll maintain it's impossible to apply at local level football with any degree of consistency or efficiency as it stands, but that's a different story.

Yes which is my point. Three scenarios:

A) the save goes straight to Aubameyang from Krul's save.

B) the save ricochets off the post and goes to Aubameyang.

C) the save ricochets off Pepe and redirects across the goal, by which time Aubameyang is level/behind Pepe.

My understanding is that from either A/B scenario Aubameyang would be offside, but by virtue of the fact it hit Pepe who knew zero about it and made no deliberate attempt to play the ball, somehow Aubameyang didn't gain an advantage by being 2 feet offside from Pepe's original shot.

The fact that this decision was basically given down to pot luck and the angle it ricocheted off Krul, despite the fact neither Pepe or Aubameyang knowing did anything to change their positioning whatsoever sucks balls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Capt. Pants said:

A few were wetting themselves ever since the fixture list was published. Well you got what you expected, 0 points, personally I think Arsenal are nothing more than mid table mediocrity.

The season starts next week, absolutely no excuses with hopefully a full squad to pick from. Gilmour and Normann simply have to start.

On one hand you say you want us to play the teams in the EPL but then do not count the first four games because they were top teams?

Extraordinary 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ian said:

Yes which is my point. Three scenarios:

A) the save goes straight to Aubameyang from Krul's save.

B) the save ricochets off the post and goes to Aubameyang.

C) the save ricochets off Pepe and redirects across the goal, by which time Aubameyang is level/behind Pepe.

My understanding is that from either A/B scenario Aubameyang would be offside, but by virtue of the fact it hit Pepe who knew zero about it and made no deliberate attempt to play the ball, somehow Aubameyang didn't gain an advantage by being 2 feet offside from Pepe's original shot.

The fact that this decision was basically given down to pot luck and the angle it ricocheted off Krul, despite the fact neither Pepe or Aubameyang knowing did anything to change their positioning whatsoever sucks balls.

You're correct that he would have been offside with A and B as Law stands. However, as C kicked in, the fact that Aubameyang is behind Pepe at that point that hit him renders the notion of being offside from the original shot moot as Pepe ends up playing another touch (whether he intends it is moot), and furthermore, Aubameyang is behind the ball when it's played, so by definition can't be offside there.

Remember, it is not an offence itself just to be offside. He's yards away from the action so the notion of him interfering doesn't apply with that second shot (unless it rebounded directly to him from the post or Krul, which it didn't), and he didn't gain an advantage as he didn't get the ball then. When he did get the ball, it was after the fortunate rebound off Pepe, and at that point he was on.

Freakish, absolutely. Annoying to concede, no dispute. Crappy law? Matter of opinion, I'm no fan of it and think it's impossible to apply at local level. But it was undoubtedly correct as it stands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

You're correct that he would have been offside with A and B as Law stands. However, as C kicked in, the fact that Aubameyang is behind Pepe at that point that hit him renders the notion of being offside from the original shot moot as Pepe ends up playing another touch (whether he intends it is moot), and furthermore, Aubameyang is behind the ball when it's played, so by definition can't be offside there.

Remember, it is not an offence itself just to be offside. He's yards away from the action so the notion of him interfering doesn't apply with that second shot (unless it rebounded directly to him from the post or Krul, which it didn't), and he didn't gain an advantage as he didn't get the ball then. When he did get the ball, it was after the fortunate rebound off Pepe, and at that point he was on.

Freakish, absolutely. Annoying to concede, no dispute. Crappy law? Matter of opinion, I'm no fan of it and think it's impossible to apply at local level. But it was undoubtedly correct as it stands.

But equally you could suggest that Aubameyang is interfering with play because our defence were aware he was there and therefore chose not to get back and cover the line because of his positioning. TLDR; because Aubameyang was offside it changed the behaviour of our defence and therefore interfered with play. Or even that Krul covered his angles slightly differently because he knew there was the possibility of the square ball.

Had the referee decided this was his interpretation this would also have been valid, do you agree?

The fact that intention and the idea of gaining an advantage by being ahead of the play is completely disregarded based on a technicality and debatable interpretation, which all took place in under half a second is laughable and just shows how pointless the rule is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

There is a lot of denying the truth on here tonight.

So could we establish that if we don't beat Watford, we are in the siht?

How many points did you expect from our first four games then?

The truth is that Man City, Liverpool, Leicester and Arsenal are streets ahead of us in terms of personnel, and the fact we played 2 of them away, getting any points would have been a positive, regardless of the order the fixtures have fallen. Or are you denying the truth yourself?

Edited by Ian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

So let's say this is onside, then is Pepe rolling over Krul not a foul?? 

No, because we're apparently all tying ourselves in knots to justify the legitimacy of their fluke goal and how $hit we are, vindicating our own fatalistic and negative viewpoints on our season's prospects, rather than judging the incident in good faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ian said:

But equally you could suggest that Aubameyang is interfering with play because our defence were aware he was there and therefore chose not to get back and cover the line because of his positioning. TLDR; because Aubameyang was offside it changed the behaviour of our defence and therefore interfered with play. Or even that Krul covered his angles slightly differently because he knew there was the possibility of the square ball.

Had the referee decided this was his interpretation this would also have been valid, do you agree?

The fact that intention and the idea of gaining an advantage by being ahead of the play is completely disregarded based on a technicality and debatable interpretation, which all took place in under half a second is laughable and just shows how pointless the rule is.

The interpretation is actually pretty clear here so I don't agree with the notion that it's debatable, as there are plenty of cases where someone is initially in an offside position even in the middle of the pitch but for a ball sent wide to a winger coming from deeper, only for a cross to come in when the striker is back on as he's behind the ball. This is merely an alternative variant of it.

However, I do agree that the rule's been unwieldy for ages and indeed that it is too complicated to use in local level football. And that's my complaint with FIFA and particularly IFAB in that they make no real effort to see how law changes affect local level football and the particular difficulties that local level referees face. My personal favourite is "favouring attackers if in doubt".

Yeah. Try that at Sunday league football. And this rule, often with no assistant referees, makes the offside rule a guessing game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheGunnShow said:

The interpretation is actually pretty clear here so I don't agree with the notion that it's debatable, as there are plenty of cases where someone is initially in an offside position even in the middle of the pitch but for a ball sent wide to a winger coming from deeper, only for a cross to come in when the striker is back on as he's behind the ball. This is merely an alternative variant of it.

However, I do agree that the rule's been unwieldy for ages and indeed that it is too complicated to use in local level football. And that's my complaint with FIFA and particularly IFAB in that they make no real effort to see how law changes affect local level football and the particular difficulties that local level referees face. My personal favourite is "favouring attackers if in doubt".

Yeah. Try that at Sunday league football. And this rule, often with no assistant referees, makes the offside rule a guessing game.

I don't think we disagree. However I think it's pretty clear that had the referee judged Aubameyang offside from the original shot it would arguably be a correct interpretation as well.

The fact we're arguing over the direction the ball ricocheted regardless of intent or action from any of the attacking players shows how detached the rule has come from its actual reason for existence.

Probably sounds like sour grapes, but given the referee deemed cantwell was interfering with Schmeichel despite the fact he was out of his eyeline and well away from him last week - it does make you wonder about the level of consistency at this "elite" level.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

Your kidding right? 

Everyone football fan I know always expects us to finish 20th in the EPL. Cannon fodder is a term I hear alot..

BUT YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO BE A NORWICH SUPPORTER!!!

For God’s sake, man up, you and the other whinging feckers and get behind your (?) team. ONCE NORMANN STARTS FOR US, NO-ONE IS EVER SCORING AGAINST US EVER AGAIN!!! 
 

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ian said:

I don't think we disagree. However I think it's pretty clear that had the referee judged Aubameyang offside from the original shot it would arguably be a correct interpretation as well.

The fact we're arguing over the direction the ball ricocheted regardless of intent or action from any of the attacking players shows how detached the rule has come from its actual reason for existence.

Probably sounds like sour grapes, but given the referee deemed cantwell was interfering with Schmeichel despite the fact he was out of his eyeline and well away from him last week - it does make you wonder about the level of consistency at this "elite" level.

 

 

Re. the bit in bold, only if the ball had gone straight to him as a pass, or as a rebound off Krul for him to tap it in. The fact it rebounded and the last bounce happened to be off Pepe, who'd gone forward as a result of his shot and in doing so, had gone ahead of Aubameyang...so that when the ball hit him and squirmed across, played him on...

The change in circumstances changes everything about application of Law here.

In terms of the law being too complicated and being unfit for purpose, we agree. However where we don't appear to agree is whether law was correctly applied this time. It was. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ian said:

How many points did you expect from our first four games then?

The truth is that Man City, Liverpool, Leicester and Arsenal are streets ahead of us in terms of personnel, and the fact we played 2 of them away, getting any points would have been a positive, regardless of the order the fixtures have fallen. Or are you denying the truth yourself?

What utter tosh. Do you really think I am enjoying us losing?I have supported this club through thick and thin and believe me standing on wooden railway sleepers in the pouring rain watching a 0-0 allows me to tell it like it is

Some of you people seem to think criticism is because people want to lose. Get a grip. 

What are you basing anything on? Points or Performance because clearly we have neither. And if you saw the table before todays match, Arsenal were below us and had lost to Brentford.

We had one shot on target despite 1% away from sharing possession.

So something is not right. Whether it is tactics, system or the players is up to the coaching staff to assess.

But to assume things will be alright when we play Watford is not based on anything we have seen so far. I hope to god we smash them and I still expect us to win. I expected us to win the previous three games. I knew it was a long shot but I expect us to win every game. Only common sense tempers my expectations.

I expect us to survive (what an awful thing to say-survive) but common sense and my own eyes tell me unless some alters, our chances are diminishing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Re. the bit in bold, only if the ball had gone straight to him as a pass, or as a rebound off Krul for him to tap it in. The fact it rebounded and the last bounce happened to be off Pepe, who'd gone forward as a result of his shot and in doing so, had gone ahead of Aubameyang...so that when the ball hit him and squirmed across, played him on...

The change in circumstances changes everything about application of Law here.

In terms of the law being too complicated and being unfit for purpose, we agree. However where we don't appear to agree is whether law was correctly applied this time. It was. 

What was the change in circumstances? I think you are correct in that the interpretation in this scenario was also arguably correct. But certainly the referee could have also given offside and also justified it in the laws of the game regardless of intent, movement or anything else other than dumb luck.

Also, what are your thoughts on Saka clearly impeding Krul?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ian said:

What was the change in circumstances? I think you are correct in that the interpretation in this scenario was also arguably correct. But certainly the referee could have also given offside and also justified it in the laws of the game regardless of intent, movement or anything else other than dumb luck.

Also, what are your thoughts on Saka clearly impeding Krul?

The change in circumstances being the fact that the ball last hit Pepe on the rebound off the post, so that was the point at which the question had to be asked of whether Aubameyang was offside or not. At that point, he was clearly on by half-a-yard. At which point the famous quip by Jürgen Wegmann saying that first you get no luck, then you get bad luck springs to mind.

Didn't see the Saka/Krul case in the highlights, so cannot comment with any authority whatsoever on that.

Edited by TheGunnShow
Wrong quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

What utter tosh. Do you really think I am enjoying us losing?I have supported this club through thick and thin and believe me standing on wooden railway sleepers in the pouring rain watching a 0-0 allows me to tell it like it is

Some of you people seem to think criticism is because people want to lose. Get a grip. 

What are you basing anything on? Points or Performance because clearly we have neither. And if you saw the table before todays match, Arsenal were below us and had lost to Brentford.

We had one shot on target despite 1% away from sharing possession.

So something is not right. Whether it is tactics, system or the players is up to the coaching staff to assess.

But to assume things will be alright when we play Watford is not based on anything we have seen so far. I hope to god we smash them and I still expect us to win. I expected us to win the previous three games. I knew it was a long shot but I expect us to win every game. Only common sense tempers my expectations.

I expect us to survive (what an awful thing to say-survive) but common sense and my own eyes tell me unless some alters, our chances are diminishing.

Please don't accuse me of writing tosh, and then in your second sentence write something that I've never suggested or implied.

Please tell me which of the following points that I actually wrote you think are "tosh":

1) The four teams we have played this season are streets ahead of us in personnel.

2) Any sort of result against these teams would have been considered a very good, above expected result.

Given that we've only been two debatable decisions away from massively exceeding expectations I would suggest our chances of survival have not diminished in the slightest.

The fact you go into every game expecting us to win, despite also knowing it's a long shot, is also a bit of an oxymoron to be honest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Ian said:

I don't think we disagree. However I think it's pretty clear that had the referee judged Aubameyang offside from the original shot it would arguably be a correct interpretation as well.

The fact we're arguing over the direction the ball ricocheted regardless of intent or action from any of the attacking players shows how detached the rule has come from its actual reason for existence.

Probably sounds like sour grapes, but given the referee deemed cantwell was interfering with Schmeichel despite the fact he was out of his eyeline and well away from him last week - it does make you wonder about the level of consistency at this "elite" level.

 

 

Todd was about 6 inches away from Schmeichel, and standing directly in front of him. If he wasn’t in Schmeichel’s eyeline, Schmeichel‘s eyes must be at the side of his head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mr Angry said:

Todd was about 6 inches away from Schmeichel, and standing directly in front of him. If he wasn’t in Schmeichel’s eyeline, Schmeichel‘s eyes must be at the side of his head.

Good point, but I misspoke. The law mentions obstructing the keeper's line of vision of the ball - it's highly debatable as to whether this was the case (the ball was above Schmeichel when Kenny headed it and Schmeichel is taller and clearly able to see above Todd's case), so my my maths, drawing straight line wouldn't intersect Todd's flowing barnet.

Anyway, that's not really the point. The fact the despite continual tweaking of the laws and VAR the offside law is still so overly engineered and subject to interpretation means it gives the opportunity for referees to favour the big teams, even if unconsciously.

Is anyone really surprised that both of these very, very debatable decisions went against us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought we started poorly but then grew into it. Up until they scored we looked like we could get something snd had a good 55 minutes where we looked a decent side. Predictably screwed over by the officials again. Disgrace of a decision. That gets disallowed and we get something out of that game in my view. 

after that Farke lost the plot chasing the game and surrendered the midfield which was tactically awful snd they could have scored a couple more. His approach of chucking strikers on and surrendering the midfield is worrying.

Positives are that most players played well, especially Omobamidele and Williams. 
 

negatives, short goal kicks. Kruls kicking out, VAR and Farke’s awful subs. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

It's Pepe's touch after the rebound from that shot. It's clear from that view that he's half-a-yard behind the ball, and by definition onside. It's the equivalent of playing a ball across goal for a tap-in, flukey though that one was.

Right, but then it comes down to did he gain an advantage by being offside when the initial shot was played. At least, that's what I was asked by a referee in a Sunday League game when I was assistant refereeing. So I could be wrong, but this is what that referee was saying to me.

First of all, was he interfering, and would he have scored if he hadn't been in an offside position. If you drag him back to be in line with Aarons, he's miles a good distance from the ball.

Aarons, by the way, has to take some blame for this. You cannot let a player wander into the 6yard box and remain stationary with your hand in the air. You have to go with and ask questions later. Especially now we have VAR. Even if the assistant ref flags it, it could be over-ruled. You have to go with, no question there for me anymore.

The issue at large is that the offside rule over a number of years has been made more and more complicated. The idea of phases so you can be offside, and offside and then not offside. Then going from "when the ball is played" to "well, mostly if when the ball is played, but not if it takes a little nick off a defender"...

It is the most horrendous of rule changes. If you are the first CB and someone has ghosted in from a position you are unsighted from, you are going to try and stop that ball getting to them, you don't know if they are offside or not. You could slip, not get as good a contact as you like and a host of other things - they score, having been offside but because you touched it. No. Just go back to basic and simple. Offside is when the ball is played, unless a player isn't interfering. If they are offside when that initial ball is played forward and they are not interfering with play and they don't gain an unfair advantage, then it's fine.

By that it should be simple. If you are standing in the penalty area and a break occurs and the defence have pushed, a break away player shouldn't be able to find you in a 2 V 1 because the defence have had to sprint back 40 yards. I would argue at that point that the player has interfered anyway, as players are having to sprint to them, when they haven't started in an onside position. It shouldn't have to be complicated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, chicken said:

Right, but then it comes down to did he gain an advantage by being offside when the initial shot was played. At least, that's what I was asked by a referee in a Sunday League game when I was assistant refereeing. So I could be wrong, but this is what that referee was saying to me.

First of all, was he interfering, and would he have scored if he hadn't been in an offside position. If you drag him back to be in line with Aarons, he's miles a good distance from the ball.

Aarons, by the way, has to take some blame for this. You cannot let a player wander into the 6yard box and remain stationary with your hand in the air. You have to go with and ask questions later. Especially now we have VAR. Even if the assistant ref flags it, it could be over-ruled. You have to go with, no question there for me anymore.

The issue at large is that the offside rule over a number of years has been made more and more complicated. The idea of phases so you can be offside, and offside and then not offside. Then going from "when the ball is played" to "well, mostly if when the ball is played, but not if it takes a little nick off a defender"...

It is the most horrendous of rule changes. If you are the first CB and someone has ghosted in from a position you are unsighted from, you are going to try and stop that ball getting to them, you don't know if they are offside or not. You could slip, not get as good a contact as you like and a host of other things - they score, having been offside but because you touched it. No. Just go back to basic and simple. Offside is when the ball is played, unless a player isn't interfering. If they are offside when that initial ball is played forward and they are not interfering with play and they don't gain an unfair advantage, then it's fine.

By that it should be simple. If you are standing in the penalty area and a break occurs and the defence have pushed, a break away player shouldn't be able to find you in a 2 V 1 because the defence have had to sprint back 40 yards. I would argue at that point that the player has interfered anyway, as players are having to sprint to them, when they haven't started in an onside position. It shouldn't have to be complicated.

Sure, but at its core that's all about how complicated the offside law now is. No dispute there, and indeed I've said several times already that I agree simplification would be a massive help.

But the initial shot scenario would only apply if it was a rebound from the post or indeed Krul. As it was Pepe himself who ended up rebounding it, the old adage at the start of Law 11, namely just being in an offside position is not an offence in itself applies. So, anyone saying the refs have got it wrong are wrong, but I do agree that the law as it stands is sh!t.

As Brian Clough famously quipped "if he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the field?" Furthermore, you make it easier to apply at local level too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

He wasn't.

2:15 on this video makes it crystal clear. Pepe's touched it, Aubameyang's clearly behind the ball at that point - it's legit.

https://youtu.be/yGXVFA0lKzQ

When Pepe touches it the first time he’s offside 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

You're correct that he would have been offside with A and B as Law stands. However, as C kicked in, the fact that Aubameyang is behind Pepe at that point that hit him renders the notion of being offside from the original shot moot as Pepe ends up playing another touch (whether he intends it is moot), and furthermore, Aubameyang is behind the ball when it's played, so by definition can't be offside there.

Remember, it is not an offence itself just to be offside. He's yards away from the action so the notion of him interfering doesn't apply with that second shot (unless it rebounded directly to him from the post or Krul, which it didn't), and he didn't gain an advantage as he didn't get the ball then. When he did get the ball, it was after the fortunate rebound off Pepe, and at that point he was on.

Freakish, absolutely. Annoying to concede, no dispute. Crappy law? Matter of opinion, I'm no fan of it and think it's impossible to apply at local level. But it was undoubtedly correct as it stands.

It wasn’t correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jim Smith said:

When Pepe touches it the first time he’s offside 

Irrelevant. That phase of play has been and gone. So, the offside call has to be made from when Pepe plays it again, and as video evidence made crystal clear, that was onside.

However, the EDP and indeed @horsefly said earlier that the main controversy was Saka handballing in the build up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Irrelevant. That phase of play has been and gone. So, the offside call has to be made from when Pepe plays it again, and as video evidence made crystal clear, that was onside.

However, the EDP and indeed @horsefly said earlier that the main controversy was Saka handballing in the build up.

If that is the case then it makes you wonder how/why VAR didn't check it. Or maybe they did?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Hardhouse44 said:

Attempted! But are we competitive. If you lose every week that’s not competitive. 
 

Only team in top four divisions yet to register a single point. You tell me! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ian said:

If that is the case then it makes you wonder how/why VAR didn't check it. Or maybe they did?!

Yep, and it's one where it would be nice to hear the communications like you do with umpire reviews in cricket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Dean Coneys boots said:

Only team in top four divisions yet to register a single point. You tell me! 

Why aren't we Ipswich eh?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ian said:

If that is the case then it makes you wonder how/why VAR didn't check it. Or maybe they did?!

VAR did check, Oliver clearly had his finger on his ear before then confirming the clearly offside goal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ian said:

Good point, but I misspoke. The law mentions obstructing the keeper's line of vision of the ball - it's highly debatable as to whether this was the case (the ball was above Schmeichel when Kenny headed it and Schmeichel is taller and clearly able to see above Todd's case), so my my maths, drawing straight line wouldn't intersect Todd's flowing barnet.

Anyway, that's not really the point. The fact the despite continual tweaking of the laws and VAR the offside law is still so overly engineered and subject to interpretation means it gives the opportunity for referees to favour the big teams, even if unconsciously.

Is anyone really surprised that both of these very, very debatable decisions went against us?

In my view, standing directly in front of the GK instantly gives an official a reason to disallow a goal-I didn't expect them to have to draw lines to justify whether Todd was in directly Schmeichel's eyeline (although drawing lines was the way they used to justify the decision to disallow Teemu's goal against Spurs, which is possibly the only use of VAR that I have seen in our games that I still think was wrong).

I'm sure that I remember some article or report a few years ago that concluded that there probably was some unconscious bias towards bigger teams in debatable decisions, although I don't subscribe to the view that some people have on here that officials are biased against us because they don't think we deserve to be in the EPL.

In both the Leicester game and today's game, I thought at the time that the decisions were wrong, but no, I am certainly not surprised that those decisions went against us, because they were correct and that is what VAR is supposed to do-make sure the decisions are correct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...