Good job this didn’t cost us

[Jim Smith 2,319]

What bugs me is that with our decisions they barely check them if indeed they do at all. When it’s a decision for a bigger team which could go against us though they seem to check them forensically.

That said we maybe had a couple in our favour at West Ham. 

[ged in the onion bag 855]

14 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Erm, Todd was stood in an offside position in front of Schmeichel when Kenny headed the ball-nobody was stood in front of Timmy when Richarlison connected.

Your being spectacularly picky there..... Schmeichel was miles from the ball and no chance of saving it.   Yes, technically he is interfering but there should be some room for common sense, did you see the ridiculous decision to cancel Klich's goal for Leeds (perfectly good 4th goal v West Ham).  

It does seem like they are maniputing VAR and the rules to suit the top teams.   

Might be hindsight but the club should be making strong representations to the league on this. 

Edited January 17, 2022 by ged in the onion bag

[chicken 2,625]

7 minutes ago, hogesar said:

You don't need to make contact with the ball, you just need to be interfering with play. Challenging the goalkeeper in the air can't be anything other than that.

The biggest thing I hate about all of this off-side nonsense is the interfering bit. You are right, you don't have to challenge for the ball. In reality, you can equally influence the play from 10ft away... a keeper may not come off their line, a player may not know... 

The problem we have, specifically with the offsides, is that VAR is being applied over the top of layers of rules implemented to try and make the offside rule easier to officiate with humans. Now you have VAR, it needs to be simplified again. When the ball is played forwards are they off-side? Yes. Simple. If you want to involve interference, anyone within 10ft of where the ball is played to. They are influencing without touching it.

Cut out this silly stuff of a defender not knowing and it bobbling off their shin then counting as not offside... would they have gone for it if they knew the player behind them was off-side? No, so influencing... 

[dylanisabaddog 4,925]

I watched the Everton game with a Chelsea fan who thought it was noticeable that we didn't pressurise the referee at all. He thinks we are naive. Sadly he's right. They probably got away with a couple of yellows on Saturday and yellow cards change games 

 

[Mr Angry 1,561]

 

20 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

Your being spectacularly picky there..... Schmeichel was miles from the ball and no chance of saving it.   Yes, technically he is interfering but there should be some room for common sense, did you see the ridiculous decision to cancel Klich's goal for Leeds (perfectly good 4th goal v West Ham).  

It does seem like they are maniputing VAR and the rules to suit the top teams.   

Might be hindsight but the club should be making strong representations to the league on this. 

No, I was just pointing out the difference between the reason our goal was disallowed and why people were saying this one should have been-i.e. nobody in an offside position was blocking Timmy's view.

This is what the law says: 

As it happens, I think that other views of that incident have since shown that Todd wasn't directly in Schmeichel's line of vision anyway so the goal probably shouldn't have been disallowed. 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Mr Angry
Oops-another image appeared by mistake

[Greavsy 2,415]

I think the phrase is 'gaining an advantage from an offside postion' rather than interfering with play. 

You dont have to touch or even attempt to touch the ball - look at Cavani for Utd against Villa last week, (sorry cannot remember the attackers name who came from an offside position and blocked off his run /  fouled him) 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Greavsy

[ged in the onion bag 855]

1 hour ago, Mr Angry said:

Richarlison was offside when the cross came in but that’s irrelevant as he didn’t touch the ball in that phase or interfere with Krul etc and he certainly wasn’t offside in the next phase when he scored. 
 

Godfrey was also offside and he challenged Krul for the cross but he didn’t make contact with the ball-I think it was Keane-so I’m not sure if that would have been given, and I’m not sure if there was a foul on Krul.

At what point does the phase of play change?   Every touch?   He was offside in that phase of play.   Or perhaps i could put it another way, Pukki or Idah would have been offside in that phase of play.   

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

If that isn't offside I don't know what is. You can clearly see the ball goes forward from the cross and those players are offside because they are all challenging and also impeding Krul although probably not fouling him.

Offside should be the one item that VAR can check mathematically, geometrically whatever you want to call it. Everything else is opinion.

Well spotted Jimbo.

[Mr Angry 1,561]

19 minutes ago, ged in the onion bag said:

At what point does the phase of play change?   Every touch?   He was offside in that phase of play.   Or perhaps i could put it another way, Pukki or Idah would have been offside in that phase of play.   

I don't know, I doubt it would be every touch, but there's a good chance that the ball being touched by an opposition player, i.e. Krul, would make it a different phase.

[hogesar 9,676]

18 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

If that isn't offside I don't know what is. You can clearly see the ball goes forward from the cross and those players are offside because they are all challenging and also impeding Krul although probably not fouling him.

Offside should be the one item that VAR can check mathematically, geometrically whatever you want to call it. Everything else is opinion.

Well spotted Jimbo.

Exactly this. And even if it was closer than those screenshots intended, it should have been checked thoroughly by VAR as (according to them) every single goal is checked for an infringement. - I'd expect us at the ground to have been notified of a VAR check.

It's absolutely unforgiveable.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

What bugs me is that with our decisions they barely check them if indeed they do at all. When it’s a decision for a bigger team which could go against us though they seem to check them forensically.

That said we maybe had a couple in our favour at West Ham. 

If it happened to Man Utd / Spuds / Arsenal / Man City / Chelski they'd still be checking it now.... corrupt as anything

[Greavsy 2,415]

35 minutes ago, hogesar said:

I'd expect us at the ground to have been notified of a VAR check.

I dont think they notify the fans at the ground for every goal, as they checked as a matter of course (allegedly) .

Sometimes there is a short delay before the team who has conceded are allowed to kick off again whilst this is completed. If a team wants to be clever, when they are narrowly behind they get the ball (as they always used to) and will take it to the centre spot, so as to speed things up. Some may even think to influence the ref / var. 

[Greavsy 2,415]

42 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

At what point does the phase of play change?

When it suits their agenda / the bigger teams need a decision! 

Edited January 17, 2022 by Greavsy

[Well b back 3,208]

Cap this with the 7 minutes stoppage time ?. Teams have managed games like that against us and it’s usually 4-5 minutes. Will never know how long it would have been if Everton were winning 2:1.

[HertsCanary93 222]

That's an absolute shocker. Definitely should have been called when all three offside players interfered with the goalkeeper.

Nothing wrong with Richarlison on the follow up though, but whistle should already have gone.

[king canary 7,607]

5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Rule the goal out for offside. 

Sorry total brain fart and didn't realise this was from the goal.

[ABC (A Basingstoke Canary) 26]

It would be so much simpler if we reverted back to the basic Offside is Offside - that then cuts out any interpretation of Interfering with play or affecting the outcome.

Unfortunately that means that Cantwell's goal would be ruled out for offside but would also mean that Everton's goal wouldn't stand.

However, it also means that we reduce the number of times needed by VAR to get out the microscope!

[Greavsy 2,415]

30 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Cap this with the 7 minutes stoppage time ?. Teams have managed games like that against us and it’s usually 4-5 minutes. Will never know how long it would have been if Everton were winning 2:1.

7 minutes declared at the match, but that was increased to 9 on motd. No idea how that happened. I half expected it to be 2-2 on the box. 

[Greavsy 2,415]

Just watched again on motd2 and if you watch Godfrey just after the ball goes in, he hesitates, almost as if he's expecting a free kick to be awarded. 

[ged in the onion bag 855]

This VAR is even getting the linesman off the hook, how on earth did he miss that?  

[Greavsy 2,415]

6 hours ago, ged in the onion bag said:

This VAR is even getting the linesman off the hook, how on earth did he miss that?  

Because he doesn't have to flag for it anymore, VAR will pick it up. Theoretically 

Edited January 18, 2022 by Greavsy

[Mr Angry 1,561]

12 hours ago, Greavsy said:

7 minutes declared at the match, but that was increased to 9 on motd. No idea how that happened. I half expected it to be 2-2 on the box. 

Krul’s injury I think.

[Greavsy 2,415]

7 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

Krul’s injury I think.

I get that, but don't they usually just show the declared "additional" time. Motd / tv coverage can't rewrite the history of the match. That was my point. 

[lake district canary 4,531]

18 hours ago, hogesar said:

Oh f*ck me! You're completely right! Wait, why didn't VAR rule it out then? Godfrey is offside, and definitely interfering with play. Arguably with the Cantwell offside that VAR gave against us the other two are just as involved.

More so than Cantwell's ofside imo. Godfrey isn't just blocking Krul's view, he's actively stopping Krul from reaching the ball. Just goes to show VAR is only as good as the people who operate it. Dismal failure by the official in his little room. They're supposed to check every goal.

[king canary 7,607]

I imagine this is probably too simplistic but my feeling is if you're in the penalty box you're interfering with play as defenders and the keeper have to take you into consideration. 

[Mr Angry 1,561]

2 hours ago, Greavsy said:

I get that, but don't they usually just show the declared "additional" time. Motd / tv coverage can't rewrite the history of the match. That was my point. 

I didn’t watch MOTD-do you mean that they displayed it as 9 minutes ‘as it happened’? Very weird if so.

[hogesar 9,676]

8 minutes ago, king canary said:

I imagine this is probably too simplistic but my feeling is if you're in the penalty box you're interfering with play as defenders and the keeper have to take you into consideration. 

Fairly reasonable.

What is really p*ssing me off about this one is there isn't really any debate - Godfrey is offside and challenges the goalkeeper for the ball in the air, it's unforgiveable for VAR not to check this, and I don't believe it should be swept under the carpet because we won. It should be highlighted as to how f*cking incompetent and useless it really is. If this is still happening i'd much rather not have VAR.

[bob.eastick@yahoo.ca 5]

Far too much attention focused on a single incident, the outcome of which brings what?  

[ged in the onion bag 855]

3 hours ago, Greavsy said:

Because he doesn't have to flag for it anymore, VAR will pick it up. Theoretically 

No, the linesman should still flag if its offside as they do all of the time once the move is completed....  of course he has to flag for it, that's his job. 

[hogesar 9,676]

16 minutes ago, bob.eastick@yahoo.ca said:

Far too much attention focused on a single incident, the outcome of which brings what?  

Eh?