Coventry disallowed goal

[dylanisabaddog 4,969]

I've just seen this on TV.  Apparently it was disallowed for offside but quite how the Coventry player was interfering with play I've no idea. He wasn't impeding Krul's view. We got away with one there. 

Overall I was quite impressed with Coventry. They were the first team this season not to try to kick lumps out of us and they played well in the second half until the substitutes changed the game. 

Edited September 4, 2022 by dylanisabaddog

[Ken Hairy 3,779]

It was similar to our disallowed goal vs Leicester last season, and Equally ridiculous. Safe to say we got away with one there. 

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

11 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

It was similar to our disallowed goal vs Leicester last season, and Equally ridiculous. Safe to say we got away with one there. 

I don't agree, KH.

Their player had previously collided with Krul who was then floored.

Krul needed to get back up in order to defend. He had, though, been impeded.

Irrespective of that, their attacker was virtually on the goal-line and in my book this is interfering with play, whatever, Clough's mantra that if he wasn't interfering with play then "what's he doing on the pitch in the first place," is far from needed here, surely?

The man was on the goal-line just a few feet away from our 'keeper. He wasn't invisible after all.

Edited September 4, 2022 by BroadstairsR

[Pyro Pete 1,914]

If it's a decision in our favour, then it's the right decision.

[ricardo 7,396]

1 minute ago, Pyro Pete said:

If it's a decision in our favour, then it's the right decision.

Quite correct👍

[Capt. Pants 4,274]

We only 'got away with one" because there was no VAR. Lino flagged as the player was offside and he cannot see Krul's line of sight. Refs are highly unlikely to overrule an offside.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,442]

4 minutes ago, Capt. Pants said:

We only 'got away with one" because there was no VAR. Lino flagged as the player was offside and he cannot see Krul's line of sight. Refs are highly unlikely to overrule an offside.

The lino didn’t flag. He stood there like a rabbit in the headlights. The ref and lino were obviously communicating but it took an age for anything to happen. The ref then blew , signalled offside and the lino put his flag up. 
This is all from memory as I haven’t watched it back but the player in the goal line ducks to let the ball into the goal. The player is clearly in an offside position and in the frame of the goal . There is no way that isn’t interpreted as offside . The only lucky thing about the decision is that the ref gave it . It is impossible to be standing in the frame of the goal and not be active . 

[Capt. Pants 4,274]

Just now, Graham Paddons Beard said:

The lino didn’t flag. He stood there like a rabbit in the headlights. The ref and lino were obviously communicating but it took an age for anything to happen. The ref then blew , signalled offside and the lino put his flag up. 
This is all from memory as I haven’t watched it back but the player in the goal line ducks to let the ball into the goal. The player is clearly in an offside position and in the frame of the goal . There is no way that isn’t interpreted as offside . The only lucky thing about the decision is that the ref gave it . It is impossible to be standing in the frame of the goal and not be active . 

Ok. I didn't look at the lino until fans around me were pointing at the ref to look at lino, who at that time had his flag up.

[canarydan23 4,060]

4 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

The lino didn’t flag. He stood there like a rabbit in the headlights. The ref and lino were obviously communicating but it took an age for anything to happen. The ref then blew , signalled offside and the lino put his flag up. 
This is all from memory as I haven’t watched it back but the player in the goal line ducks to let the ball into the goal. The player is clearly in an offside position and in the frame of the goal . There is no way that isn’t interpreted as offside . The only lucky thing about the decision is that the ref gave it . It is impossible to be standing in the frame of the goal and not be active . 

With the caveat that I would be livid if this went against us, you are right.

He was in an offside position and actively influenced play. Had he stood stark still,the ball would have hit him and not gone in, so he physically ducked, an action that objectively influenced play.

[hogesar 9,720]

VAR would have given it offside. Realistically Krul wasn't going to save it but the player on the line prevented him diving for it, and he was offside. He was interfering more than Cantwell wad last season, put it that way.

[PurpleCanary 5,579]

40 minutes ago, hogesar said:

VAR would have given it offside. Realistically Krul wasn't going to save it but the player on the line prevented him diving for it, and he was offside. He was interfering more than Cantwell wad last season, put it that way.

Quite. The shot goes to Krul's right and just past the Coventry player's left shoulder, so by standing there he is impending Krul's chances to getting across to the shot, even if he probably would not have saved it.

As to the offside flag, I don't know what the sequence there was, but even though the linesman can obviously see it is offside forwards, as it were, he cannot judge whether it is offside sideways in terms of closeness or otherwise to Krul.

Only the referee with his central view could judge that, and obviously thought it was interference. It is not up to the referee to decide whether Krul would have saved the shot. Only whether his chances were affected.

As it happens if it had gone to VAR it might anyway have been ruled out for a foul by the Coventry player on Krul. There was certainly contact.

Edited September 4, 2022 by PurpleCanary

[Virtual reality 716]

Correct decision but why did it take the linesman to wait the entire duration of their celebrations to raise his flag? 

[TheGunnShow 5,983]

Completely legit. If you're basically between the goalposts then you'll usually be defined as interfering with play. They got this one right.

[Drazen Muzinic 1,446]

13 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Correct decision but why did it take the linesman to wait the entire duration of their celebrations to raise his flag? 

5h1ts and giggles I reckon...

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

14 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Completely legit. If you're basically between the goalposts then you'll usually be defined as interfering with play. They got this one right.

I'd have to agree with that. How can you be in the frame of the goal and not interfering with play under almost any circumstance - the goalie must be aware of you in his peripheral vision and that limits or informs his actions. Its very similar blocking the goalies movement  at corners!

Correct decision.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Yellow Fever

[Daz Sparks 1,174]

15 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Correct decision but why did it take the linesman to wait the entire duration of their celebrations to raise his flag? 

He just signalled the decision after the ref gave it, it really wasn't that long, maybe 10 ish seconds as the ref spoke to the lino.

 

[GodlyOtsemobor 2,361]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I've just seen this on TV.  Apparently it was disallowed for offside but quite how the Coventry player was interfering with play I've no idea. He wasn't impeding Krul's view. We got away with one there. 

Overall I was quite impressed with Coventry. They were the first team this season not to try to kick lumps out of us and they played well in the second half until the substitutes changed the game. 

The same way cantwell was against Leicester 😉

[Nexus_Canary 1,024]

You forget.. in the championship we are the big boys

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

How on earth, an attacking player standing on the goal-line cannot be deemed as interfering with play is beyond me.

[ricardo 7,396]

Having watched the replay the Coventry guy was offside when the initial cross came in and never regained onside before the ball hit the net. In fact it looks like he was behind Krul and ducked out of the way of the shot.

Clearly offside.

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

100% interfering - the guy had to get out of the way of the ball so it’s go in, there was no way Krul could dive to stop it.   Sat behind the goal it was all clear as day, it was disallowed and should have been, no question.

[Daz Sparks 1,174]

3 minutes ago, Branston Pickle said:

100% interfering - the guy had to get out of the way of the ball so it’s go in, there was no way Krul could dive to stop it.   Sat behind the goal it was all clear as day, it was disallowed and should have been, no question.

I'm also behind the goal (ish), and I'm not all that qualified to call marginal decisions, but even I could see that he was in Krul's way, and considering I wasn't too surprised it got called offside, I am saying it was a cast iron offside.

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,836]

At the game, I thought we had got away with one, but having seen it back, I think it was the right decision. The player in an offside position was close enough to Krul to prevent him diving, so it wasn't really comparable to Cantwell against Leicester last season where he was miles away. 

[hogesar 9,720]

41 minutes ago, Nexus_Canary said:

You forget.. in the championship we are the big boys

Normally I'd agree but Sargent should have had 3 penalties already this season, of course none have been given.

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,442]

I can’t really see the argument here. The issue is that the lino didn’t immediately flag and that the ref gave the offside by his signal before the flag goes up . That’s very unusual. The fact the lino didn’t immediately run back to the half way line suggests immediate comms with the ref .
 

So we have to give the officials some credit for using technology and getting it right . 
 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Graham Paddons Beard

[Branston Pickle 3,678]

10 minutes ago, hogesar said:

Normally I'd agree but Sargent should have had 3 penalties already this season, of course none have been given.

Aarons too - that non decision v Wigan still annoys me!

[daly 507]

1 hour ago, Virtual reality said:

Correct decision but why did it take the linesman to wait the entire duration of their celebrations to raise his flag? 

That linesman was completely intimidated by the crowd 

The usual 3 tanked up middle aged yobs behind me were at him from the start, to be fair he missed what looked like the ball run out of play  twice but they probably don’t understand that the whole ball has to be over the line

That said a lucky decision that went our way

Edited September 4, 2022 by daly

[Canary Jedi 586]

Difference vs Leicester incident:

Cantwell was obscuring the goalkeeper’s view

Coventry player was not obscuring Krul’s view

If the Coventry player had not been on the line, I believe Krul would not have saved it. 

So we got away with one there

[ricardo 7,396]

3 minutes ago, Canary Jedi said:

Difference vs Leicester incident:

Cantwell was obscuring the goalkeeper’s view

Coventry player was not obscuring Krul’s view

If the Coventry player had not been on the line, I believe Krul would not have saved it. 

So we got away with one there

He was offside from the initial cross into the box. The rest of the incident is irrelevant.

[Danke bitte 967]

1 hour ago, Nexus_Canary said:

You forget.. in the championship we are the big boys

Completely! We’re the Chelsea of the Championship and I only chose Chelsea because of the alliteration