FA Cup 3rd Round Games 6/7/8/9 Jan

[Bluearmy]

I reckon if the lino has seen him as offside then it is because he has used the coming-back-from-an-offside-position excuse which seems to be a catch-all reasoning they use whenever they are not sure. It is often followed by “and they never got themselves back onside” even when they appear level with the last defender. They say if a player is running from an offside position to pick up the ball in an onside position that this is classed as offside but what else can a corner-taker do, they have to be furthest forward in any case, it’s a stupid rule. It needs changing so that individual player can avoid this shite reasoning.

This is not the reason. He was 5 yards onside when it flicked the wolves players head on the way back out to him near the corner flag

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

There must be an historic game where VAR intervened in this stadium at that particular point of the pitch. I find it hard to believe no camera angle exists. The game is rigged

Wasn’t it Salah v us where he clearly looked offside but the goal stood without them showing any replay or VAR footage?

 

[CityDean]

Decisions like that one in the Wolves match last night are the reason why I am slowly emotionally distancing myself from the sport. Fed up of matches being decided by the officials and VAR. I love City but really starting to dislike the sport as a whole. These referees are blatantly corrupt and are just allowed to get away with it while sabotaging results.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

I've just seen the video and I'm wondering just WHO was offside. That ranks as one of the dodgiest decisions of the last ten seasons in the FArce Cup.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Was the Robertson incident broadcast during the game as I don’t remember seeing it?

 

[Blue_eyes]

If he thinks the guy taking the corner is offside when the ball comes back the flag should go up straight away not once the ball is in the net as from there it's not a clear goal scoring opportunity.

You are right, lino should flag straight away and not try to get he goal dissallowed after, it just looks bent. You play to the whistle always anyway, not the flag and if var cant find an offence with their cameras its the home teams fault for not having proper coverage.

Sick of flags for some teams going up just in case its offside, against staying down(red teams) just in case it isnt.

I bet that if the lino didnt flag var would have soon found another "offence" to cancel the goal out.

Having no conclusive camera angle at the stadium stinks of having a get out clause in these situations, if var cannot prove an offence was commited the goal should stand, especially if the flag did not go up in play.

Having areas of the pitch not covered by var is not a mistake, it is unproffessional at least, and any club whose stadium requires full var implementation should be fined and docked points for not being able to.

Of course, along with the other red media darlings who can have riots in an empty stadium, and find "toilet bombs" at their convenience to get games cancelled on the day of the match without punishment, the bias is clear and organised.

Cant wait for these fckers to drop down the league, even the casual fans are unbearable.

 

[hammocity]

Agreed. There are some valid issues around first/second phase. Last night wasnt it

The ball was initially played for salah. The defender plays it (because of salah run) but it still gets to salah so this is still the first phase. And should be called offside

Anyhow, they changed the interpretation after our goal against villa (Silva goal, Rodri off) to stop this. Unless you play in red, then this doesn't apply!

Slightly different rule but read through this Dale Johnson Twitter thread, this has been going on for a while now, several examples going back 5 years ago.

However, he does say, like most us think it’s not in the spirit of the game.

Rodri, came from behind Mings v Villa but Mings had control of the ball, how far would he be able to run before Rodri could make a legitimate challenge? I didn’t see anything wrong with that but the outcry because it was City lead to a change in the rules. This latest incident should definitely show what a poor rule this is and amend it.

 

[Blue_eyes]

Just looked at it all again.

Lino has put a "panic" flag up because he has been told the "value" of having dippers in the farce cup, and the lack of var has done the rest.

Just give em a fcking bye next time instead of this total farce.

 

[Paul1970]

App Leeds have got 6000 tickets for Cardiff so that could be a very difficult day for the south wakes ob today .

 

[its grim up north]

I have no idea if the Wolves goal was offside or not but it is a disgrace that they can't provide a camera angle to prove that it was.

However, my biggest problem is with Sarah's goal. The winger crosses the ball to him when Salah was in an offside position and because the ball skims the defender's head, Salah is classed as onside. The defender wouldn't have had to try for the ball at all if Salah wasn't in an offside position. Just seems crazy to me.

Thing is, and I dont like giving the Dipps any loose, but the same rule helped us out a couple of seasons ago. When playing Villa, Bernado passed to Rodri who was slow getting back and was offside, Mings made an effort to intercept and touched the ball, playing Rodri on. Bernado took the return pass and scored.

 

[Tommy_Catons_Perm]

See this is what I don’t understand and haven’t heard the question asked. Why is there no camera angle? Is VAR implemented differently at Anfield and if so why? Surely to god every PL ground has to have a consistent implementation or teams are playing to different rules.

The excuse given that there was no camera angle showing offside is deliberately vague I think. At first I thought it meant the frame rate was insufficient or the direction in which the camera was pointing was not precise, both inherent deficiencies which are accepted.

It now seems that it could mean that certain areas of the pitch are not covered. I assumed that 100% of the pitch was covered at every ground in the prem. Is this incorrect? Are some areas not covered at some or all grounds? If so we need lists or diagrams defining the precise areas of coverage or a list of blind spots. How much blind area is allowed? 10%,50%...100% !?

If the blind spots are different at different grounds than it makes the use of VAR a mockery.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The excuse given that there was no camera angle showing offside is deliberately vague I think. At first I thought it meant the frame rate was insufficient or the direction in which the camera was pointing was not precise, both inherent deficiencies which are accepted.

It now seems that it could mean that certain areas of the pitch are not covered. I assumed that 100% of the pitch was covered at every ground in the prem. Is this incorrect? Are some areas not covered at some or all grounds? If so we need lists or diagrams defining the precise areas of coverage or a list of blind spots. How much blind area is allowed? 10%,50%...100% !?

If the blind spots are different at different grounds than it makes the use of VAR a mockery.

So just the " blind spots " then ?

 

[chesterbells]

Anyway a replay is not such a bad thing ,Klopp already moaning - to be played just before the Wolves home game too correct?A bit of a win-win

Yeah, suppose it’s a silver lining isn’t it?

 

[SebastianBlue]

Yeah, suppose it’s a silver lining isn’t it?

It is. A replay was actually my preferred outcome.

But the way in which it happened should mean questions are asked about VAR, officiating, and competition fairness.

Unfortunately, we all know the nonsensical “explanation” that was given last night will be blindly accepted, though, as there are too many negative consequences for anyone in the more established media to interrogate what happened.

Same as it ever was. How people think the FA isn’t just another corrupt sport organisation is beyond understanding.

 

[Saddleworth2]

The excuse given that there was no camera angle showing offside is deliberately vague I think. At first I thought it meant the frame rate was insufficient or the direction in which the camera was pointing was not precise, both inherent deficiencies which are accepted.

It now seems that it could mean that certain areas of the pitch are not covered. I assumed that 100% of the pitch was covered at every ground in the prem. Is this incorrect? Are some areas not covered at some or all grounds? If so we need lists or diagrams defining the precise areas of coverage or a list of blind spots. How much blind area is allowed? 10%,50%...100% !?

If the blind spots are different at different grounds than it makes the use of VAR a mockery.

Exactly my point. The thing is nobody will take this to a conclusion and find out exactly what the situation is.

 

[hammocity]

Exactly my point. The thing is nobody will take this to a conclusion and find out exactly what the situation is.

Not difficult is it, Salah’s position to receive the ball is clearly offside. And ensure there are no blind spots, Goal line tech works to very accurate margins, surely VAR should be bang on the money from all angles from everywhere on the pitch.

Also make the VAR decisions transparent with the crowd able to see and hear the process as in other sports, and make sure the Rags and Dippers have the large screens in by next season, no negotiations.

 

[Saddleworth2]

Not difficult is it, Salah’s position to receive the ball is clearly offside. And ensure there are no blind spots, Goal line tech works to very accurate margins, surely VAR should be bang on the money from all angles from everywhere on the pitch.

Also make the VAR decisions transparent with the crowd able to see and hear the process as in other sports, and make sure the Rags and Dippers have the large screens in by next season, no negotiations.

I read an article that it was the tv cameras not covering that angle. If that’s the case why not? If Var is 100% dependent on tv cameras then there must be an agreed number and position for them.

 

[SebastianBlue]

I read an article that it was the tv cameras not covering that angle. If that’s the case why not? If Var is 100% dependent on tv cameras then there must be an agreed number and position for them.

It will be explained away as “just how it is setup at Anfield” without a single prominent observer asking the pertinent question “why is it different at Anfield than elsewhere” and “why is it allowed at Anfield and no anywhere else”.

There is absolutely no reason—this far in to VAR implantation—that the underlying systems should be implemented drastically differently from stadium-to-stadium.

Any “explanation” for it is a nonsense excuse and tantamount to admission that some clubs are given special dispensation to have more limited VAR review, which based on recent decisions at Anfield (even involving that “blind spot”), nearly always favour the home club…

…but that is merely a coincidence.

 

[stan bowles]

Seems obvious that whenever there is ambiguity, lack of evidence, or simply interpretation of what unfolds during play, Liverpool and United always get the decisions in their favour.
Wolves third "goal" ruled out.
Salah's goal allowed to stand.
Robertson's dangerous boot contact with Traore's face totally ignored.
The first two were given in Liverpool's favour and the Robertson incident wasn't deemed deliberate.

 

[stan bowles]

You are right, lino should flag straight away and not try to get he goal dissallowed after, it just looks bent. You play to the whistle always anyway, not the flag and if var cant find an offence with their cameras its the home teams fault for not having proper coverage.

Sick of flags for some teams going up just in case its offside, against staying down(red teams) just in case it isnt.

I bet that if the lino didnt flag var would have soon found another "offence" to cancel the goal out.

Having no conclusive camera angle at the stadium stinks of having a get out clause in these situations, if var cannot prove an offence was commited the goal should stand, especially if the flag did not go up in play.

Having areas of the pitch not covered by var is not a mistake, it is unproffessional at least, and any club whose stadium requires full var implementation should be fined and docked points for not being able to.

Of course, along with the other red media darlings who can have riots in an empty stadium, and find "toilet bombs" at their convenience to get games cancelled on the day of the match without punishment, the bias is clear and organised.

Cant wait for these fckers to drop down the league, even the casual fans are unbearable.

The FA and Premier League should be onto Dipperpool straight away to get their VAR system upgraded so this excuse can't be used again. It's just another form of cheating. If it happens again they should be heavily fined. United should be made to have VAR screens at the Swamp - again fined if they don't. Why should all other clubs have to have working screens covering the whole pitch in place and these two teams not be ?