Sainz’ goal

[Ian 1,136]

39 minutes ago, The Engineer said:

I don't know, it looks pretty level to me... We had another similar goal a couple weeks back that looked as suspicious if I'm not mistaken?

 

 Bit of a basic error from Sainz to not hold a little, but it does look pretty marginal on that. I personally would rather see these sort of goals given.

[The Engineer 16]

My idea on how offside should be applied is to first get rid of the stupid armpit rule! Secondly, a player should not get punished for simply having bigger feet (e.g., your toe might be offside so it's flagged). 

Simple solution, there has to be clear daylight between the attackers leading foot and the defenders trailing foot for offside to be given. Also rids of the stupidity of being given offside for leaning forward as you run! If this was applied, Coventry would be in the FA Cup final and we would have beaten Spurs; I am still very bitter about that Pukki offside decision!

Edited April 22 by The Engineer

[Jezzard 16]

These situations are almost always given onside. Guessing something to do with the Lino thinking a) a pro footballer wouldn’t misjudge the line and b) the attacking team gets no advantage from being 50 cm further forward. Of course neither should be relevant to the decision making. 

[Graham Paddons Beard 2,445]

You cannot be offside if you are behind the ball when it is passed. In this case the forward movement of the ball is irrelevant. 

 

The question is , looking at the still photo, is Sainz behind the ball? From my point midway in the South Stand on Saturday I thought he was offside. This photo doesn't help me think otherwise.  

Edited April 22 by Graham Paddons Beard

[Hairy Canary 707]

7 minutes ago, Graham Paddons Beard said:

You cannot be offside if you are behind the ball when it is passed. In this case the forward movement of the ball is irrelevant. 

 

The question is , looking at the still photo, is Sainz behind the ball? From my point midway in the South Stand on Saturday I thought he was offside. This photo doesn't help me think otherwise.  

I know this is going to sound ridiculous but, considering how meticulously VAR measures attackers against opponents when the ball is passed forward, what part of the ball is Sainz supposed to be compared to? Is it the part nearest the goal, the part touching Sargent's foot or it's centre?

What a bonkers place we have come to!

Like you, at the ground I thought he was offside. That still makes it look much much closer than I realised

[Matt Juler 155]

Anyone got a similar freeze frame on the late Bristol 'winner' that was deemed offside?

[The Engineer 16]

13 minutes ago, Matt Juler said:

Anyone got a similar freeze frame on the late Bristol 'winner' that was deemed offside?

You ask, I shall deliver...

He does look to be ahead of the line, albeit marginal. So looks like the correct decision from the lino to me!

[wr4sb 33]

Thank you for the arrow, I was wondering which of the 3 Bristol City players that look ahead of our defence we looking at?

As there is none of our defenders near him, I would suggest the guy at the bottom will have Gunn's eye, so technically would be interfering with play? 

[The Bunny 314]

Just now, wr4sb said:

Thank you for the arrow, I was wondering which of the 3 Bristol City players that look ahead of our defence we looking at?

As there is none of our defenders near him, I would suggest the guy at the bottom will have Gunn's eye, so technically would be interfering with play? 

Standing in an offside position away from the play is not "interfering with play". 

[The Bunny 314]

26 minutes ago, The Engineer said:

You ask, I shall deliver...

He does look to be ahead of the line, albeit marginal. So looks like the correct decision from the lino to me!

He's partially obscured by Mccallum in this shot but Sarge does seem to be playing him on (and possibly one other). I'd have been livid if this had been the other way. 

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

This sort of debate is what leads to VAR. 

It was deemed onside and a goal. End of.

Edited April 22 by Creedence Clearwater Couto

[The Bunny 314]

2 hours ago, Creedence Clearwater Couto said:

This sort of debate is what leads to VAR. 

It was deemed onside and a goal. End of.

I don't think anyone was debating what the decision was, but thanks for playing. 

[Faded Jaded Semi Plastic SOB 1,036]

9 hours ago, Feedthewolf said:

If you freeze it at the point it leaves Sarge's boot, it's very, very close. If there's any doubt, the assistant should give the advantage to the attacking team. So fair enough in my eyes.

Except of the defending team is Man Utd 😀..............

[Creedence Clearwater Couto 1,297]

1 hour ago, The Bunny said:

I don't think anyone was debating what the decision was, but thanks for playing. 

A confusing reply.

 

[Capt. Pants 4,274]

5 hours ago, The Bunny said:

He's partially obscured by Mccallum in this shot but Sarge does seem to be playing him on (and possibly one other). I'd have been livid if this had been the other way. 

Bloody close but Sarge's arm might be playing him on.

Sainz might just be level by why on earth did he not be a good foot behind Sarge?

On a VAR day we may well have been disappointed by both decisions.

 

[Duncan Edwards 2,261]

Clearly on side. No flag. The end. 🙂

[Six Pack 94]

15 hours ago, The Engineer said:

I don't know, it looks pretty level to me... We had another similar goal a couple weeks back that looked as suspicious if I'm not mistaken?

 

If you went by this photo, Sainz is onside, but Sargant didn't release the ball at this time. He delayed which resulted in Sainz stepping ahead of him. We were very lucky !

[Scrivvy 18]

Unless our ground staff are not very good with parallel grass cutting, in which case - who knows?

[BroadstairsR 2,199]

Sarge had that big, wide 'keeper closing in on him, he was not entirely selfless. Saintz could have delayed his run slightly, their defenders were miles away.

The most telling thing about the goal's validity was the timid appeal from their players. No crowding the ref, no scuffles, just acceptance.

[Branston Pickle 3,679]

17 hours ago, The Bunny said:

He's partially obscured by Mccallum in this shot but Sarge does seem to be playing him on (and possibly one other). I'd have been livid if this had been the other way. 

Wow, you just won’t have it, will you.

The fact here is simple: he was offside, it was given immediately - I saw it from the Barclay - and what happened after that is irrelevant.  The ref’s whistle went as/before the shot was made.

In terms of ‘offsides’ we didn’t get away with anything on Saturday, however much you appear to want it to be otherwise.

Edited April 23 by Branston Pickle

[BurwellCanary 216]

18 hours ago, The Bunny said:

Standing in an offside position away from the play is not "interfering with play". 

Was it Bill Shankley that said 'If you are not interfering with play you shouldn't be on the pitch' ?

[Greavsy 2,421]

1 hour ago, BurwellCanary said:

Was it Bill Shankley that said 'If you are not interfering with play you shouldn't be on the pitch' ?

Cloughie I always believed

Although a Google.search show various sources. 

Edited April 23 by Greavsy

[Leedscanary 345]

4 hours ago, Scrivvy said:

Unless our ground staff are not very good with parallel grass cutting, in which case - who knows?

Any rules about how the grass should be cut?

Wouldn't it be great if some of the Prem teams - Forest, Wolves, et al - cut the grass at random diagonals that "confused" the VAR (even more than it already is) 

[The Engineer 16]

25 minutes ago, Leedscanary said:

Any rules about how the grass should be cut?

Wouldn't it be great if some of the Prem teams - Forest, Wolves, et al - cut the grass at random diagonals that "confused" the VAR (even more than it already is) 

There actually is now I believe. Leicester used to do a lot of cool 'grass art' during the season they won the league and then rules came in the following season about certain patterns...

[The Bunny 314]

5 hours ago, Branston Pickle said:

Wow, you just won’t have it, will you.

The fact here is simple: he was offside, it was given immediately - I saw it from the Barclay - and what happened after that is irrelevant.  The ref’s whistle went as/before the shot was made.

In terms of ‘offsides’ we didn’t get away with anything on Saturday, however much you appear to want it to be otherwise.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. But it's kind of telling that about 50% of our fans think otherwise, even with their yellow and green spectacles on...

In any case, my main point is simply that we were lucky to get a point, although I'm very happy that we did. It was a poor performance and even Wagner admitted that (which is unusual for him).