Ref Watch

[Gordyola]

This is Rashford not interfering with play

 

[M12Blue]

What also struck me yesterday, watching on Bein and every time one of ours went down in penalty box they said VAR had reviewed and said no penalty. But commentators said it’d been checked within literally a couple of seconds. Is that possible.
I would love to know if reviews are recorded for auditable purposes. If so I would love to know VAR review time for favourable and unfavourable city decisions. I reckon if it was possible to anonymise the players and teams involved and sent to referees 12 months later you’d get different outcomes.
F#cking got to me the cheating on Saturday. Will take a while to go. No faith in the process any longer

 

[MillionMilesAway]

What also struck me yesterday, watching on Bein and every time one of ours went down in penalty box they said VAR had reviewed and said no penalty. But commentators said it’d been checked within literally a couple of seconds. Is that possible.
I would love to know if reviews are recorded for auditable purposes. If so I would love to know VAR review time for favourable and unfavourable city decisions. I reckon if it was possible to anonymise the players and teams involved and sent to referees 12 months later you’d get different outcomes.
F#cking got to me the cheating on Saturday. Will take a while to go. No faith in the process any longer

Same on BT - the confirmation about VAR looking at was very quick all through the match. I didn't es[ecially identify that it was skewed or not towards one team, just that it was quick.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

VAR - on what grounds?

e.g.
Atwell - "in my opinion, MR did not interfere with any players, and I had clear view".
VAR - "You're sure about that?"
Atwell - "yes, I'm sure. the flag was raised because he thought MR played the ball, and as that doesn't apply, there is no offside"

The trouble is that it's a subjective opinion, there's no clear instance. VAR needs to be able to identify an error to recommend a review, and it's really difficult to do so on subjective matters.

On the grounds that Rashford ‘did’ interfere with play:-

I. By running alongside the ball (within inches) for several metres, most offsides of this nature are given when a player simply moves towards the ball when in an offside position, imho the linesman considered him offside via interference
2. By raising his arms in a defensive position i.e. to hold off a defender, which is interference
3. Raising his foot to intimate he was going to strike the ball, causing hesitation in defending & forcing the GK to take shape for a shot

You then had a situation where both officials disagreed in respect of interference, in that instance VAR should’ve stepped in to clear the matter up one way or another. The referee (from his distant position) would have to say categorically that he was satisfied all three of those instances where negative, there’s no way he could do that, and that’s why VAR should of interjected. We are all used to the terms they use ‘clear & obvious’ etc etc, that wasn’t subjective, the officials weren’t aligned, it was a clear & obvious mistake and the ref should’ve been made to address it on his monitor at the very least

 

[M12Blue]

Same on BT - the confirmation about VAR looking at was very quick all through the match. I didn't es[ecially identify that it was skewed or not towards one team, just that it was quick.

Maybe but my recollection was we had more potentials. Just seemed oddly quick. Not saying they were pens, soft probably

 

[Hart of the Matter]

but that doesnt physically change anything the opponent can do and thats the bit that matters

Yes it does. Fuck off.

 

[Hart of the Matter]

without touching it

You don't know the rules. Fuck off wumming

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Maybe but my recollection was we had more potentials. Just seemed oddly quick. Not saying they were pens, soft probably

Soft yes, but each a potential penalty, remember Kyle Walker being called an idiot? Think it was the infamous Leicester game, where ‘contact’ was deemed enough to award a penalty, how many has Salah won through contact? Vardy is another one

 

[Maly]

Here’s former ref Keith Hackett’s take on it

 

[Stiff Little Wingers]

New tactic.

Get 9 players linking arms/shoulders in a full circle around Bernardo or Mahrez and shielding them from any opposing players and then calmly walk the ball up the pitch and into into the opposing goal.

We'd probably get to the 6 yard box and pass back

 

[searsleftpeg]

Still annoyed about yesterday, all right thinking people agree its offside, but what good is it to us now? We complain, but with a shrug it carrie's on as usual,and won't stop until some proper recompense and sanctions are imposed on blatant poor decisions like that.

 

[jjctid]

But the laws specify what makes them active [edited - sorry about that] - they specify what makes the player count, and are couched in wording about impacting ability of opponents to play the ball/obstructing vision etc.
There is no line of the offside law that is clearly broken, just some where it comes down to an opinion of whether it was broken. Almost by definition, there is then no clear error, and VAR does nothing.

I think this is the relevant section:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

• interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or [he didn't touch it]
• interfering with an opponent by:
  
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or [no City player was in range to play it, Ederson wasn't blocked]
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or [didn't happen]
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or [this is the point in most question for me, and is subjective]
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball [similar to the immediate point above]

or

• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
  
  • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent [didn't happen]
  • been deliberately saved by any opponent [didn't happen]

I think that particularly when Rashford cocked his left foot back as if to shoot, that was clearly impacted on Ederson as the ball would surely have gone to his right if Rashford shoots.

I think it was a terrible decision from a footballing opinion as it becomes impossible to defend against a player who is clearly in an offside position (see also the Salah goal vs Wolves recently), but I grew up when offside was simple, and now you get this.
I think if Rashford had stopped then Walker would have been more interested in challenging for the ball, but Rashford's continued running made him think that he must be impacting play.

The issue with said laws is the intentional ambiguity which means you can / can not endorse any decision. The simple solution would be to change the wording of the offside law. If a player affects the defending team then he is offside. Job done - flag up and move on.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

The issue with said laws is the intentional ambiguity which means you can / can not endorse any decision. The simple solution would be to change the wording of the offside law. If a player affects the defending team then he is offside. Job done - flag up and move on.

Quite - the law wording is the problem.
They've fiddled with it for years and have ended up with the rubbish we now have.

 

[pudge]

The wording or laws won't be changed.

The subjectivity is what they want. They can call it either way and hide behind their bullshit.

It was offside, simple as that.

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

The wording or laws won't be changed.

The subjectivity is what they want. They can call it either way and hide behind their bullshit.

It was offside, simple as that.

And the rag cunts have been wrongly assisted to 3 points they shouldn't have .

 

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

If Rashford isn’t there then it is easily dealt with by Walker, Akanji, Ederson and Ake.

As Micah Richards said on MOTD, as a defender, playing a high line and playing for offside is an art form.

What is the point of playing for offside any more if decisions like that are being made.

 

[Jesus H Gabz]

Another instance not flagged in the spurs v arse game, Kulusevski actually dummied the ball, interesting

 

[Stephen230]

Still think lino a shithouse though for not flagging immediately

That isn’t fair. He’s one of the best linesman in the world and has a medal for officiating in a World Cup Final to prove it.

He did precisely as he’s instructed to do. Correctly identified an offside. Delayed his flag until a potential goal scoring opportunity was complete and then raised his flag to advise the referee he thinks there was an offside. It’s not on him that the referee ignored that advice.

 

[Bentheblue]

And the rag cunts have been wrongly assisted to 3 points they shouldn't have .

Not like it’s the first time and will not be the last. Always been different rules for teams in red.

 

[i went to rotherham]

That isn’t fair. He’s one of the best linesman in the world and has a medal for officiating in a World Cup Final to prove it.

He did precisely as he’s instructed to do. Correctly identified an offside. Delayed his flag until a potential goal scoring opportunity was complete and then raised his flag to advise the referee he thinks there was an offside. It’s not on him that the referee ignored that advice.

I agree with what you are saying but......in the first half, the same linesman put his flag up instantly to rule Phil Foden an inch at most, off side. Consistency is what we all crave.