Coventry disallowed goal

[Virtual reality 707]

1 hour ago, Daz Sparks said:

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.

 

Took a lot longer than that. 

 

Edited September 4, 2022 by Virtual reality

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

14 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

100% not my view.  He had to get out of the way of the ball. Krul would have had to dive into him. It’s as offside as you can get.

Edit: That it took the officials a little while to get the decision made doesn’t make it wrong. I wondered if the lino didn’t see the player stood next to Krul, he and the ref clearly conferred and made the right call. 100%. Same would apply if it were us and it was Pukki stood on the line. No doubt whatsoever that he was in play, in an offside position and interfering.  We didn’t ‘get away with one’ at all.

Edited September 4, 2022 by Branston Pickle

[canarydan23 4,060]

20 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 ducked and got out the way of the ball.

Had he not, the ball would have hit him.

Therefore, by any definition, he interfered with play. His action, ducking, altered the outcome of the phase of play. That's a fact.

Having established that, the only question remains is was he in an offside position and the answer to that is an emphatic yes.

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

3 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

He ducked and got out the way of the ball.

Had he not, the ball would have hit him.

Therefore, by any definition, he interfered with play. His action, ducking, altered the outcome of the phase of play. That's a fact.

Having established that, the only question remains is was he in an offside position and the answer to that is an emphatic yes.

I can’t see how people could come to any other decision - and the same would apply if it was us at the end of it.

In actual fact, it’s quite different to us v Leicester last season as if I recall correctly Todd was only very marginally offside.

[Daz Sparks 1,154]

27 minutes ago, Virtual reality said:

Took a lot longer than that. 

 

That shows 4 seconds. I still contend that the decision was gave in region of 10 seconds, maybe it was some seconds more, but not "a lot longer". 

[Branston Pickle 3,657]

Funny, isn’t it, being a Norwich fan - we outplay a side and win comfortably, but still need an inquest into whether or not we got away with something (we didn’t - that’s offside anytime anywhere).  Do other supporters do this same amount of navel-gazing?  

[Pete Raven 276]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

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.

That was my understanding also. 
 

 

[lake district canary 4,531]

Right decision, but oh so slow in coming to it.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

 

Blimee!

All eleven City players in the box there. Parking the bus, or what?

 

[Canary Jedi 579]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

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

Ah thanks, then it makes sense 👍

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

1 hour ago, BroadstairsR said:

 

Blimee!

All eleven City players in the box there. Parking the bus, or what?

 

If you watch some PL games, you'll see every team does it. As poor as we were last year even the top teams got 10 men behind the ball against us when we won possession back, it's why you need athletes now, to get up and down the pitch as quickly as possible. We were slower than every other team at it last year but in the Championship we're one of the quicker and more athletic teams so we can do it to teams who play slower football

[glory.win or die. 270]

To  be fair he was only off side with the initial ball in,then fouled krul and was offside again standing directly next to krul as the shot went in..krul probably wouldn't have saved it but a player standing next to you offside has to be a distraction.

 

[shefcanary 2,407]

3 hours ago, ricardo said:

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.

Spot on Ricardo. All the talk about whether he was impeding Krul on the line is not relevant. He was offside when the cross went in (albeit marginal at best) and as he challenged Krul in the air he became active. 

[The Great Mass Debater 1,090]

I think it counts as offside. He is in an active zone of the pitch. He might not be obstructing Krul's view, but Krul is taking his presence into account, and you could also argue he is obstructing his ability to make a save. Right decision in my opinion. It's not like Krul didnt instantly appeal

[chicken 2,624]

4 hours ago, Pete Raven said:

That was my understanding also. 
 

 

Yup same here. And if you watch the highlights, you'll see he jumps into Krul to make dealing with the ball difficult which means Krul pushes it back out rather than makes the catch, which is why the chap is pretty much on top of him when it comes back in.

[Mason 47 1,379]

If you watch Krul when the volley comes in, he does go to put an arm out then stops when he realises the player is there. Might not have saved it but that's the point, the player being there affected what happened (including being in the way of the shot as well) 

If McLean/ Cantwell was offside then my goodness this one was. Regardless of the initial ball.