The answer to this is, they have been told not to raise their flags until the move in question has been completed, to avoid what would would have happened if the ref had not been savvy enough to ignore it... In the old days it would have been just plain old offside, wrongly but nevertheless it would have been given..And why should she not have raised her flag immediately? Why are they 'instructed' to wait and see what happens?
And why should she not have raised her flag immediately? Why are they 'instructed' to wait and see what happens?
Of course they have. And they're instructed to wait so var can check if a goal is scored.The answer to this is, they have been told not to raise their flags until the move in question has been completed, to avoid what would would have happened if the ref had not been savvy enough to ignore it... In the old days it would have been just plain old offside, wrongly but nevertheless it would have been given..
otherwise known, in the olden days, as tough shit.Because then if they get it wrong and it's not offside, a perfectly good chance doesn't get taken away from a team who did nothing wrong.
Ok, so guessing you’ve not followed the thread?And your point is what? Are you saying we should have stopped too? Imo it’s tough shit, if you don’t know the rules you don’t deserve anything, same as Villa
Good point, I thought it was a bit rum that in the last round of the FA Cup some matches (at Prem grounds) had VAR whilst the games at little places didn't. Thats not right. Should have turned the VAR to 'off' and when it gets to the semi-final stage (at Wembly I assume) bring it back in. Consistency is important in everything.In the interest of fairness the rules should not change for the duration of the competition, in this case over the 38 games of the season. Otherwise, the teams that have benefitted from, or fallen foul of the rule prior to it changing will have had an advantage or disadvantaged by said rule change over everything that happens subsequently.
It's debatable wether the two players who stopped would have prevented the goal. Others have stated pre VAR this would have been ruled out, totally correct but there's been times (not often) where the ref has ignored the liners flag due to him seeing a passage of play in a different way, the players mostly played to the whistle, they shouldn't be looking at the Liner, they should just wait for the whistle, as you say, tough shit.Ok, so guessing you’ve not followed the thread?
Somebody mentioned we didn’t gain an advantage from the flag going up.
We did as at least 2 of their players stopped.
Is it tough shit on WBA? Yes absolutely
Should we have stopped? No, should we fuck
Was there anything wrong with the goal? Not at all
Hope that clears up the point for you?
1958 Bolton v Man U (Nat Lofthouse v Harry Gregg) skip video to bout 1:40I'm expecting the rule about contact with the goalkeeper to change by the weekend.....it's going to be like the old days where you could just barge the goalie into the net!
otherwise known, in the olden days, as tough shit.
Give me tough shit over VAR all day long and twice on Sunday’s mate ...otherwise known, in the olden days, as tough shit.
Agreed, they may well have not stopped the shot. However, I’m sure we’ve all played a bit of Footie ourselves, so I’m sure you’d agree that if you were playing & having nobody to close you down & giving you time when you’re about to shoot, makes it a damn sight easier to hit the target than having that split second to get your shot off with 2 players closing you down?It's debatable wether the two players who stopped would have prevented the goal. Others have stated pre VAR this would have been ruled out, totally correct but there's been times (not often) where the ref has ignored the liners flag due to him seeing a passage of play in a different way, the players mostly played to the whistle, they shouldn't be looking at the Liner, they should just wait for the whistle, as you say, tough shit.
It's difficult to assess how quickly the defenders would have got to block the shot, agree with your reading though, the sight of a playing running towards you is quite often enough to prevent a goal. The way we played in that game especially the second half in the lowest of gears would not have prevented us winning comfortably.Agreed, they may well have not stopped the shot. However, I’m sure we’ve all played a bit of Footie ourselves, so I’m sure you’d agree that if you were playing & having nobody to close you down & giving you time when you’re about to shoot, makes it a damn sight easier to hit the target than having that split second to get your shot off with 2 players closing you down?
The advantage came from Cancelo having more time to take his shot, nothing to do with if the players would’ve stopped the shot
Or fuck things up that have worked perfectly well for 100 years, blossoming into a worldwide hit and making billions.Lucky we're not in the olden days anymore, then. We also used to have polio, corporal punishment and the Ice Capades. The fun thing about time passing is that we generally get to fix things that don't work so well.
Watch the midfielder who jogs into the box and raises his arm for offside.It's difficult to assess how quickly the defenders would have got to block the shot, agree with your reading though, the sight of a playing running towards you is quite often enough to prevent a goal. The way we played in that game especially the second half in the lowest of gears would not have prevented us winning comfortably.
Or fuck things up that have worked perfectly well for 100 years, blossoming into a worldwide hit and making billions.
Give me tough shit over VAR all day long and twice on Sunday’s mate ...
I was doing that for 40 years before VAR came along and ruined my enjoyment of the gamethat's all we and good but let's see if you would actually accept and just shrug your shoulders at a blatant salah dive or a Man Utd goal against City when a player is miles offside.
I was doing that for 40 years before VAR came along and ruined my enjoyment of the game