Ref Watch

[SebastianBlue]

I used to read Johnson's articles to get an unbiased view on controversial decisions, but really he is just an intellectual Peter Walton. They all seem to forget that Ederson is an "opponent" "attempting to play the ball" by positioning himself for a shot from Rashford. What else do they expect him to do? Rush out and clear the ball and Rashford out safe in the knowledge that he is offside? Yeah right. Play to the whistle they tell you. They expect him to have one eye on Rashford and one on Fernandes so he can react to both? On what planet?

Johnson: "The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

Ederson's problem was Rashford in any goalkeeping scenario, he is quite rightly looking right at him and positioning himself to save the shot. That is all his ability as a goalkeeper can allow him to do in that situation. Rashford shouldn't have been there, then his ability as a goalkeeper would allowed him to rush out and clear. The mind really boggles that they can't get their heads around this.

Still fuming.

The more I watch the “goal” back and the more I read the mental gymnastic certain parts of the media are undertaking to legitimise the decision (though, not all sport media… that’s how bad the decision was), the more infuriated I become.

For me it should be the pulling back of the curtain for anyone that doubted there was bias/suspect officiating in the PL.

No collection of officials at this level could be so spectacularly incompetent.

A part of me genuinely thinks Pep should instruct Erling to just stand about 15 yards outside the penalty box at all times, whether or not he is onside (is there such a thing anymore?), making sure not to be in direct line of sight of the keepers view of play, and we should slow pass the ball to him multiple times a match, with Walker and/or Alvarez sprinting from an onside position as Erling penguin walks the ball toward goal, before jumping out of the way at the last moment for Kyle or Julian to smack it past the befuddled keeper.

But the other part of my knows referees would just give opposing keepers free rein to go two footed through his ankles to get the ball before calling him offside.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Shocking that this twat actually came to the right conclusion.

Ref Watch: Should Bruno Fernandes' goal have stood against Manchester City? Dermot Gallagher's verdict

Bruno Fernandes equalising goal in the Manchester derby was allowed to stand despite Marcus Rashford appearing to interfere with play from an offside position; Referee Stuart Attwell deliberated over the decision with VAR Michael Oliver for 60 seconds before awarding the goal

www.skysports.com

Wtaf? So he deliberated the decision with VAR for 60 seconds? We are told VAR can only tell the referee if Rashford was in front of the last defender or not, not get involved in subjective decisions. So VAR was involved. What are they actually debating? The whole thing stinks. They can't even get their stories straight.

 

[cheekybids]

The decision was so bad not even Dermot ‘I think he got it about right, and here’s my nonsensical explanation for why’ Gallagher could support it.

Changed his tune from Saturday when him, Owen & Berbatov were all gas lighting SWP. I think they didn’t expect out pouring of rage from non City fans. Teams may hate us but they aren’t blind.

 

[Stoned Rose]

Should change the thread title to **** Watch.

 

[blueinsa]

Is there a link that shows him changing his opinion please mate?

Yesterdays ref watch mate.

Immediately after the game he is quoted as saying it was a goal but he didn’t yesterday.

 

[Ajm1985]

I used to read Johnson's articles to get an unbiased view on controversial decisions, but really he is just an intellectual Peter Walton. They all seem to forget that Ederson is an "opponent" "attempting to play the ball" by positioning himself for a shot from Rashford. What else do they expect him to do? Rush out and clear the ball and Rashford out safe in the knowledge that he is offside? Yeah right. Play to the whistle they tell you. They expect him to have one eye on Rashford and one on Fernandes so he can react to both? On what planet?

Johnson: "The real case for discussion is about Ederson, and whether his actions would have changed had Rashford not been there. Perhaps, but Rashford doesn't impact the goalkeeper's ability to come and play the ball. He may affect his choice to do so, and how he might shape for a save, but the law doesn't discuss how a player might behave differently if the offside player isn't present; it only discusses the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

Ederson's problem was Rashford in any goalkeeping scenario, he is quite rightly looking right at him and positioning himself to save the shot. That is all his ability as a goalkeeper can allow him to do in that situation. Rashford shouldn't have been there, then his ability as a goalkeeper would allowed him to rush out and clear. The mind really boggles that they can't get their heads around this.

Still fuming.

My only thought is that they expect Ederson to completely ignore Rashford's existence, assume he's offside, turn to face Fernandes and run straight at him, terminator style.

I usually like Johnson's articles, but there have been a few (not just against City) where it seems a bit nonsensical. Even in this one, he makes an argument that it could be seen that Rashford didn't feint or shape to shoot - I've no idea why anyone would pretend that was the case.

 

[tornandfrayed]

The law and lore of the offside offence

16th January 2023 There was a controversial offside decision this weekend in a high-profile football match. Usually, for anyone with an interest in the game, it is plain if a player is offside or not and, if so, whether there has been an offside offence.

lawandlore.substack.com

Constitutional lawyer and top legal blogger (and West Brom fan I think) David Allen Green weighs in with a well argued case.

 

[Blueboy73]

Like Taylor at the Etihad v Chelsea Pre-VAR when he put his finger to his ear before reaching for a card?

Until Saturday, that was the worst refereeing "performance" I'd ever seen.

 

[Blueboy73]

So MOTD concluded it was a ridiculous decision and it was offside, and today DG said it was offside, and they all had a laugh about it, and every rag I have spoken to since have all said obviously it was offside haha. And at my sons football practice tonight one of his coaches who is a rag agreed and when i said I'm pretty much done with watching it anymore as it's pointless and obviously corrupt as its just about money and selling the PL brand, his reply was "its always been about the money".
If you had a business and your staff were as bad as the officiating appears to be then you'd be out of business or you'd sack em' all and get new staff, so the PL & FA & PiGMOL aren't incompetent they are quite clearly bent and corrupt and just use all the tools at their disposal, VAR and other bullshit statements after an iffy decision so they can justify it, or if they can't then just shrug their shoulders and say it's one of those subjective ones that could go either way, except it never does goes the other way does it.
Our owners should be shouting from the highest point about how unjust it is and that they'd be looking into legal proceedings against the so called officials and the hapless decisions, rather than just getting drybümmed again.
Come on City ffs sort out this bunch of corrupt w4nkers once and for all.

The Laws of the Game are written down in black and white and are objective.
Using phrases like "subjective", "grey area", "open to interpretation" is a smokescreen to cover up for a blunder, a weak official pandering to players or home fans screaming at him or plain corruption.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Anybody saying that Attwell made a "mistake" and that all his PiGMOl endorsed mates are bending over backwards to explain the interpretation of the laws and how he made this mistake are so far off the mark.

It wasn't a mistake.

He, like so many refs before him have done, gave a VERY dodgy decision in favour of united when he saw the opportunity to, which directly led to them scoring a VERY dubious goal.

It wasn't a fucking mistake.

It was simply yet another example of totally biased refereeing in the rags favour.