Should it have stood?

[eyalluvitt]

Should never have stood in a million years, the Ref can't give Cornet 500 (non) fouls for our players being in the same postcode as him and yet not give a clip of the heels that leads to a goal. The other end and it's an instant foul.

 

[kaz7]

You are looking at the wrong thing,offside no but a clear foul on eric,bt showed clear contact,the ref went to blow,whistle in his mouth ala alti fan v chavs,it was a stitch up at 1-1

 

[Fred_Quimby]

I remember Tevez being well offside and the ball being passed to him but he left the ball and ran to get onside. The player who had kicked the ball ran after it and collected the ball and ran towards goal - can’t remember if he scored or not but it was given offside.

 

[gocity]

Who was the pillock on BT who said that was a foul anywhere else on the pitch?

 

[BolinCell]

It wasn't var what cost us last night.

It is relevant though. That second goal shouldn't have stood and it changed the game

Again, we're the only team that has to be absolutely perfect in every game just to make sure we don't get shafted.

That's taking conspiracy to an whole new level. After the second goal Sterling misses a sitter. Also look at Garcia's defending for the third stood around like a stuffed dummy playing their forward onside, he should of been making sure he gets nearer the goalie than the forward anticipating a fumble or making sure the forward is offside. Garcia has got a lot to learn about defending in my book.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Not making excuses as we deserved to be dumped out due to our inept and cowardly set up but that’s another story.

Their second goal though? Regardless of whether it brushes his foot or not I just can’t get my head around how he’s not deemed as offside. He interacts with the ball by skipping over it, it’s a dummy so he’s manipulating the ball which is interfering with play from an offside position.

I can’t think of any examples but I’m sure I’ve seen plenty of similar incidents given as offside hence my confusion.

please can someone explain to me the rules as I thought I understood them?

The rules, or laws, as I understand them, particularly relating to VAR incidents, are that the law is made up on the spot based on the merits of situation. If MCFC score then the microscopes are immediately brought into play and the incident is forensically screened for the most minuscule interaction by one of ours, whether the interaction was legal or notand any goal resulting from said interaction is immediately and comprehensively disallowed, and if the interaction is by a member of the opposition then it is judged beforehand as not an illegal interaction and any goal resulting would stand.

 

[Marvin]

It is relevant though. That second goal shouldn't have stood and it changed the game

Again, we're the only team that has to be absolutely perfect in every game just to make sure we don't get shafted.

It's relevant to why we lost but by now I am used to City getting done over so we can't afford to play so poorly. Lyon were for the first half an hour of the game in control. That all came from Pep's strategy.

We said he didn't have a Plan B. He's got all kinds of Plans. He works overtime on them.

Get back to fluid attacking play and stop trying to copy your old foe Mourinho.

 

[BobbyBoy]

I get a definite feeling of this. How can they get away with it. And it’s not being questioned. Rather than ask the questions the presenters seem to be enjoying the result too much to worry about the corruption. The lack of transparency is sickening. My missus thinks I’m a nut job going off on one about this every time.
Niall Quinn, Brian Kerr and Graeme Souness came out a few months ago on Irish tv and verbally upended the presenter when he posed a stupid question about City and VAR. the 3 of them in agreement that it’s corrupt and the uefa system is designed to keep the party closed off to the cartel. It’s the only time I’ve felt vindicated in years now of being called a cheat by media sources and other fans.

Quinn and Kerr both agreed last night that it wasn't a foul. I has thought it was a definite foul until Quinn explained Laporte change direction and ran across Demeble, the collision was on Laporte, nothing to do with Dembele.

 

[Palerider]

Offside for me. Our players (or any players) would have to know that the player dummying the ball was offside and therefore can be ignored. They did not know that and therefore the player MUST have been interfering with play at least mentally if not physically. Not certain on the foul but any sensible referee would have taken the safe route and blown for the foul to avoid situations like this. VAR, what's the point.

 

[Saddleworth2]

I am a bit surprised at the views on here that 'we deserve to be dumped out irrespective of that decision'. Memories are short and this is the third year running a VAR/refereeing decision has been pivotal in our exit. Liverpool, Spuds and now Lyon.

The 'goal' should not have stood. Fact. We were in the ascendency at the point the 'goal' was awarded. It changed the game.

We won at CAS, we continue to lose on the pitch because of bent refereeing. If they cant get you one way they will get you the other. I wonder if Kev, Bernie and chums think we will ever by allowed to win the CL.