The 'I hate premier league officials' thread

[curious yellow 184]

In the first half there was a very late decision for offside after Krul saved. I wondered if they were waiting to see if Arsenal scored so they could find a way to justify it. 

We score a perfectly good goal that the goalkeeper had no chance to save and it gets ruled out. We concede a goal that is miles offside and its allowed to stand. Both on petty technicalities. They've changed the rules and the spirit of the game to give them more control on the result. 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

Finally seen the goal in question. What a kerfuffle. It shows how bad the offside rule is with all the amendments over the last 15 years, but the referee has got it right.

First shot tipped onto post, all OK. 

Second shot, Aubameyang is in an offside position when the shot is hit, but Williams looks like he gets a touch on it. Doesn't matter as the ball then crashes into the melee and hits an unwitting Pepe as he falls over. At this point, you need to look where Aubameyang is relative to the ball as it's a new passage of play. He's half-a-yard behind it as the ball hits Pepe - not in front.

It's legit.

https://youtu.be/yGXVFA0lKzQ

Yeah that's fine and you're right of course. But he was too far away to call that and should have at least looked at the footage. But he didn't even bother and I know with absolute certainty that if we scored that exact same goal he would have looked at the VAR cameras

[Diane 500]

41 minutes ago, cambridgeshire canary said:

Robbed of a point two matches in a row. Played the best we have all season and we still get shafted. **** sake.

You need to look at the next frame, experts say (and replays do show this) that it hit Krul before he kicked it in, therefore officially onside

[Helsinki canary 240]

Just now, Capt. Pants said:

Then that is clearly offside, but the replays I saw suggested the ball came of Krul onto Aub. The commentators suggested it came off Williams.

When I first saw it I also thought it hit Krul and then onto Aub but when looking at it from multiple angles it seemed more likely it hit the leg of the grounded Arsenal player on its way to Aub. Need to see a few more replays in slow motion to be sure though.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

2 minutes ago, Diane said:

You need to look at the next frame, experts say (and replays do show this) that it hit Krul before he kicked it in, therefore officially onside

It hit Pepe, and he was ahead of Aubameyang when he hit it, so by definition he could NOT be offside.

[Capt. Pants 4,195]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Finally seen the goal in question. What a kerfuffle. It shows how bad the offside rule is with all the amendments over the last 15 years, but the referee has got it right.

First shot tipped onto post, all OK. 

Second shot, Aubameyang is in an offside position when the shot is hit, but Williams looks like he gets a touch on it. Doesn't matter as the ball then crashes into the melee and hits an unwitting Pepe as he falls over. At this point, you need to look where Aubameyang is relative to the ball as it's a new passage of play. He's half-a-yard behind it as the ball hits Pepe - not in front.

It's legit.

https://youtu.be/yGXVFA0lKzQ

Yeah Aub is behind Pepe. I think you're right.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

Should probably also note that Arsenal fans hate Michael Oliver as they feel he's done them wrong before. So I think to maintain his status he did them a favor today so he can keep officiating at the emirates, at our expense of course, because our club won't kick up a fuss about being cheated and even if we did, we're Norwich, we get no media coverage so nobody would pay any attention anyway, if that cheating coward did the same thing to Arsenal he would have been under all kind of pressure

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

If it came off Krul i.e. a save, it's offside.

If Williams played the ball and touched it, it's onside.

OTBC

 

 

[WD40 720]

Was at the game and absolutely zero communication as to what was going on. Was there a VAR check? My assumption is there was and they decided the ball came off a Norwich player, playing Aubamayang onside. A huge cheer went up in the away end when we all saw the replay, as he was clearly offside. Then seconds later confirmed goal given. Could see Kenny and Grant complaining but clearly too late. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

2 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Should probably also note that Arsenal fans hate Michael Oliver as they feel he's done them wrong before. So I think to maintain his status he did them a favor today so he can keep officiating at the emirates, at our expense of course, because our club won't kick up a fuss about being cheated and even if we did, we're Norwich, we get no media coverage so nobody would pay any attention anyway, if that cheating coward did the same thing to Arsenal he would have been under all kind of pressure

Not here mate. This is how it's panned out. Even allowing for the fact this is behind somewhat, Aubameyang is clearly on when that touch is made.

It's an unlucky set of ricochets, but it's legit. 2:15 on the video

https://youtu.be/yGXVFA0lKzQ

[Google Bot 3,256]

Biggest shame is that no VAR check occurred and no official reason will be released as to why it was given and check not performed. 

This is a multi billion pound professional sport but officials spend more time eating prawn sandwiches than actually being addressable for such decisions.

Why an earth can't they give a 5 minute address to media to clear up such issues so we can all be educated?!  

Otherwise it's smoke and mirrors which goes very much against the idea of  professional officiating. 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Not here mate. This is how it's panned out. Even allowing for the fact this is behind somewhat, Aubameyang is clearly on when that touch is made.

It's an unlucky set of ricochets, but it's legit. 2:15 on the video

https://youtu.be/yGXVFA0lKzQ

Maybe I'm blind or clinically insane then, because it looks like the last touch before the goal came off of the Arsenal players boot when he was on the ground. Either way it's irrelevant, it's a really hard decision to call and pre 2019 I wouldn't have an issue with it. But the fact that Oliver was so arrogant that he didn't even check the footage just properly rubs me the wrong way, especially after all the flimsy excuses VAR has given to rule off our goals before.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

Referees only look at the footage when instructed to by the video ref so there's nothing sinister in Michael Oliver not looking at it, if Mick Dean was able to work out what had happened and could confirm that the goal was legitimate.

In fact I can't remember any other occasion when the ref on the pitch has been asked to look at the footage for an offside decision.

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Maybe I'm blind or clinically insane then, because it looks like the last touch before the goal came off of the Arsenal players boot when he was on the ground. Either way it's irrelevant, it's a really hard decision to call and pre 2019 I wouldn't have an issue with it. But the fact that Oliver was so arrogant that he didn't even check the footage just properly rubs me the wrong way, especially after all the flimsy excuses VAR has given to rule off our goals before.

It did - that's my point. You have to judge whether Aubameyang is offside at THAT point, and he clearly wasn't.

There's an understandable complaint about consistency of using VAR. There's a complaint about ease of understanding the offside rule. There's definitely a complaint about how difficult the offside rule is to apply at all levels of the game (ex-referee here).

But the actual decision was absolutely in line with Law as it stands.

[Mr Angry 1,545]

8 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Biggest shame is that no VAR check occurred and no official reason will be released as to why it was given and check not performed. 

This is a multi billion pound professional sport but officials spend more time eating prawn sandwiches than actually being addressable for such decisions.

Why an earth can't they give a 5 minute address to media to clear up such issues so we can all be educated?!  

Otherwise it's smoke and mirrors which goes very much against the idea of  professional officiating. 

BBC said that VAR checked it-don't they routinely check all goals anyway even if there is no doubt?

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

It did - that's my point. You have to judge whether Aubameyang is offside at THAT point, and he clearly wasn't.

There's an understandable complaint about consistency of using VAR. There's a complaint about ease of understanding the offside rule. There's definitely a complaint about how difficult the offside rule is to apply at all levels of the game (ex-referee here).

But the actual decision was absolutely in line with Law as it stands.

From my view watching on TV he was offside. Well, certainly more offside than the last dead skin cell on Pukki's finger was offiside v Spurs. But I wasn't there so I can't say for certain. 

All I know is Oliver was well behind the play, or at least 20 yards away which is further than the TV cameras and he gave that difficult decision without even looking at the VAR replay. My issue is with his dismissive arrogance and how if we scored that goal it would have been checked by VAR. Like I said before maybe you're right about the final decision, but I just can't handle how it was made in comparison to other teams. 

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

Just now, Mr Angry said:

BBC said that VAR checked it-don't they routinely check all goals anyway even if there is no doubt?

VAR check it without showing it to the TV screens or asking the ref to come over for another look like they do when they're certain they're right...

Okay then, the VAR ref totally didn't just say to Oliver whatever, it's 50/50 just give the goal, no, I bet he properly scrutinized it and did his job...Like the VAR guys did with us when we played against Spurs, they really scrutinized that decision for about 5 minutes and found any excuse they could. Funny these double standards

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

From my view watching on TV he was offside. Well, certainly more offside than the last dead skin cell on Pukki's finger was offiside v Spurs. But I wasn't there so I can't say for certain. 

All I know is Oliver was well behind the play, or at least 20 yards away which is further than the TV cameras and he gave that difficult decision without even looking at the VAR replay. My issue is with his dismissive arrogance and how if we scored that goal it would have been checked by VAR. Like I said before maybe you're right about the final decision, but I just can't handle how it was made in comparison to other teams. 

Assistant was dead level so there's no doubt the assistant would have said something to him, as well as VAR. My guess is that they just wanted to check who got the last touch as when the second shot was initially hit, Aubameyang had strayed off. If Krul had made the save and he's picked it up, then it's offside.

Once they realised it hit Pepe and was a new phase of play, the only question then is "off or on", but the assistant would probably have picked that as he was bang in position.

But I don't mind admitting that I'm guessing what communication is happening there.

[Google Bot 3,256]

6 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It did - that's my point. You have to judge whether Aubameyang is offside at THAT point, and he clearly wasn't.

Not necessarily, because if he was interfering with the earlier ball he can be offside too.  Because for majority of those phases he had an advantage in an offside position which lead to him being unmarked to score. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

Not necessarily, because if he was interfering with the earlier ball he can be offside too.  Because for majority of those phases he had an advantage in an offside position which lead to him being unmarked to score. 

If that had come off Krul as a save, then yes. However, the point is the ball hit Pepe again in the resulting rebound before going across goal for Auba to tap in, so you end up with a new offside question. Aubameyang was clearly onside that time, and that was the one that counted.

It's a sickener, but it's no less valid.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Assistant was dead level so there's no doubt the assistant would have said something to him, as well as VAR. My guess is that they just wanted to check who got the last touch as when the second shot was initially hit, Aubameyang had strayed off. If Krul had made the save and he's picked it up, then it's offside.

Once they realised it hit Pepe and was a new phase of play, the only question then is "off or on", but the assistant would probably have picked that as he was bang in position.

But I don't mind admitting that I'm guessing what communication is happening there.

yeah and it's very close I'll admit that, maybe even a goal by the letter of the law. But why didn't he take a look? and why do refs always scrutinize our goals with VAR? It seems like they bend the fine lettering of the law whatever way they want to screw us over. The amount of bloody times I've seen a Burnley or Watford standing on Krul's toes for a corner that they score from then having to suck up McLean's disallowed goal, it just sickens me and makes me hate the sport I grew up loving. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

Just now, Christoph Stiepermann said:

yeah and it's very close I'll admit that, maybe even a goal by the letter of the law. But why didn't he take a look? and why do refs always scrutinize our goals with VAR? It seems like they bend the fine lettering of the law whatever way they want to screw us over. The amount of bloody times I've seen a Burnley or Watford standing on Krul's toes for a corner that they score from then having to suck up McLean's disallowed goal, it just sickens me and makes me hate the sport I grew up loving. 

Don't forget with the Leicester one though, Leicester had a man on the post who came out before McLean's header. Cantwell had indeed just strayed off. It was bloody good defending, really.

I agree that plenty stand on Krul's toes, but we usually keep our men on the posts.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,131]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Don't forget with the Leicester one though, Leicester had a man on the post who came out before McLean's header. Cantwell had indeed just strayed off. It was bloody good defending, really.

I agree that plenty stand on Krul's toes, but we usually keep our men on the posts.

I'll just agree to disagree here. I don't like arguing with people on here, we're all Norwich fans. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But even though you have evidence to prove yourself right in terms of the technicality of the decisions, it will not dissuade me from believing that other bigger, richer or more fashionable clubs wouldn't have gotten these decisions against them and wouldn't have been treated with such disdain and disrespect from the supposedly best ref in England (what a crock) in Oliver. 

I believe that if we scored that goal they would have found an excuse to chalk it off. You disagree, that's fine. Have a good night and try not to sulk as much as I am xD

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

2 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I'll just agree to disagree here. I don't like arguing with people on here, we're all Norwich fans. You're entitled to your opinion and I respect that. But even though you have evidence to prove yourself right in terms of the technicality of the decisions, it will not dissuade me from believing that other bigger, richer or more fashionable clubs wouldn't have gotten these decisions against them and wouldn't have been treated with such disdain and disrespect from the supposedly best ref in England (what a crock) in Oliver. 

I believe that if we scored that goal they would have found an excuse to chalk it off. You disagree, that's fine. Have a good night and try not to sulk as much as I am xD

Don't worry about it. Main reason I comment in refereeing cases is just to explain how Law works as someone who used to referee for 10 years. I essentially hung my whistle up in 2006, but still help out with a friend's team from time-to-time if their league doesn't assign them one.

Edited September 11, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Google Bot 3,256]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

If that had come off Krul as a save, then yes. However, the point is the ball hit Pepe again in the resulting rebound before going across goal for Auba to tap in, so you end up with a new offside question

He can surely be called offside during the previous play/initial shot as he was gaining an advantage being offside which lead to the goal.

At that point it doesn't matter if it came off Krul or Pepe as he's interfering with play when the shot was made, as evident with him scoring after the block/deflection. 

That's how I see it anyway. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

4 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

He can surely be called offside during the previous play/initial shot as he was gaining an advantage being offside which lead to the goal.

At that point it doesn't matter if it came off Krul or Pepe as he's interfering with play when the shot was made, as evident with him scoring after the block/deflection. 

That's how I see it anyway. 

Plenty of cases where someone who was offside in the middle but isn't interfering as a ball is sent wide for a winger running from deeper, then puts a cross in to the striker who is back onside to score a legitimate goal. It's exactly the same principle here.

[The Real Buh 3,423]

Arsenal were going to get that goal, one way or another. If they had to create a rule they would have.

[Google Bot 3,256]

31 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Plenty of cases where someone who was offside in the middle but isn't interfering as a ball is sent wide for a winger running from deeper, then puts a cross in to the striker who is back onside to score a legitimate goal. It's exactly the same principle here.

Those scenarios are much clearer/definable phases in my mind.

I see this as more a block/deflection scenario than a legit second phase of deliberate play.  But, I don't actually know how the rules of the game applies in this instance, and what defines a new phase of play - and if it is as simple as a 'touch' or more interpretation is allowed.

I'd love for an official word to explain it, as it really educates us all and makes situations like this easier to digest.  You're definitely helping me to grasp it more, but my head is still not allowing it haha.🙂

Edited September 11, 2021 by Google Bot

[Ken Hairy 3,759]

54 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Not necessarily, because if he was interfering with the earlier ball he can be offside too.  Because for majority of those phases he had an advantage in an offside position which lead to him being unmarked to score. 

Exactly this, on the original ball he's clearly interfering and by a hell of a lot more than Cantwell last week. This decision sucks more balls than the Pukki offside v Spurs. 

[TheGunnShow 5,932]

1 minute ago, Google Bot said:

Those scenarios are much clearer/definable phases in my mind.

I see this as more a block/deflection scenario than a legit second phase of deliberate play.  But, I don't actually know how the rules of the game applies in this instance.

I'd love for an official word to explain it, as it really educates us all and makes situations like this easier to digest. 🙂

Think of every new touch by an attacking player as a new phase of play.