The Stones Goal

[moomba]

Letting the goal stand was the right decision, but I presumed they'd been harshly treated with the West Ham one O'Neil was talking about.

But watching in MOTD, two totally different situations, and both correct decisions imo.

 

[footballmanager]

i mean it isnt even close, theres nothing to discuss here, bernardo takes himself out of the play before stones even heads the ball, nowhere near the sight of the ball...

The wolves manager and the red mafia wanted it to be disallowed just because it meant Man City getting a w, nothing else, they will continue to do everything in their power to beat us, no matter the fairness or legality of the situation. But thats nothing new, we get robbed everytime we face them, now even at home

 

[halfcenturyup]

 

[blueju]

Where was all of this scrutiny and nonsense from BBC United - Mediacity when Ederson was blocked and fouled before Arsenal scored from their corner?

View attachment 135668

Replays of the incident also showed Silva backing in and nudging his Portugal international team-mate Sa as the corner came in.

The goal was initially ruled out for offside, but a player cannot be offside from a corner.

By the time Stones connected with the ball, Silva had moved away from Sa and deemed not to be impacting the keeper's vision or ability to get to the ball.

It could, however, be argued Silva should have been penalised for a foul on the goalkeeper.

View attachment 135669

Wolves v Man City: Winning goal a 'grey area' - but what does law say?

What was the fall-out of John Stones' late winner for Manchester City against Wolves, with the goal given following a VAR check after initially being ruled out.

www.bbc.co.uk

Did they have a vote on whether Ederson being constantly fouled at corners vs Arsenal was a grey area?

 

[Phil1]

@johnnytapia is the only one I’m surprised at for thinking it should be disallowed.
Why?

 

[halfcenturyup]

@johnnytapia is the only one I’m surprised at for thinking it should be disallowed.
Why?

It's never offside in a million years (the question is why the linesman thought he could give it as interfering from his position? It must have been the easiest VAR correction ever) but I wouldn't have a problem if it was disallowed for impeding the keeper as long as all the other instances of impeding the keeper were also punished consistently. It's a pet hate (that and wrestling in the box, and mm offsides)

Who knows. Now we have scored one, maybe the guidelines will be tweaked again .......

It's another example of how poorly VAR is communicated, though. Who thought the VAR was asking the referee to overturn the on-field decision, and not just rule out the goal? Come on, be honest.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

If the Stones goal was disallowed, it’d mean Arsenal won’t be scoring from corners any more using their quite obvious blocking techniques & Arteta dark arts.
What next?
The gold badge on the shirt dazzled me?
The sun was in my eyes?
The man in row G distracted me?
Grealish’s haircut annoyed me?

Bernardo is the size of a hobbit, he’s distracting no one!

 

[eyalluvitt]

Any other club score that and there is no a big csi inquest The impartial journalists all had their pants round their ankles and lube out at the prospect of us dropping points to the bottom boys. I hope they all had a good rest of their day trying to play snooker with a piece of string

 

[Blueboy73]

Where was all of this scrutiny and nonsense from BBC United - Mediacity when Ederson was blocked and fouled before Arsenal scored from their corner?

View attachment 135668

Replays of the incident also showed Silva backing in and nudging his Portugal international team-mate Sa as the corner came in.

The goal was initially ruled out for offside, but a player cannot be offside from a corner.

By the time Stones connected with the ball, Silva had moved away from Sa and deemed not to be impacting the keeper's vision or ability to get to the ball.

It could, however, be argued Silva should have been penalised for a foul on the goalkeeper.

View attachment 135669

Wolves v Man City: Winning goal a 'grey area' - but what does law say?

What was the fall-out of John Stones' late winner for Manchester City against Wolves, with the goal given following a VAR check after initially being ruled out.

www.bbc.co.uk

The nonce protectors at our impartial publically funded broadcaster should have provided options as to why it shouldn't have stood with Option A being that it meant City gained 2 extra points.
The 71% of fuckwits who voted No would all have chosen that one.

 

[Tolmie scores]

If the Stones goal was disallowed, it’d mean Arsenal won’t be scoring from corners any more using their quite obvious blocking techniques & Arteta dark arts.
What next?
The gold badge on the shirt dazzled me?
The sun was in my eyes?
The man in row G distracted me?
Grealish’s haircut annoyed me?

Bernardo is the size of a hobbit, he’s distracting no one!

It was the little nudge while being in an offside position which made it contentious. Would he have simply caught it if he was set. Probably. But games about opinions. May gripe is that we go for it first 15 mins like our life depends on it. Always concede with first counter. Do that v Arsenal. Liverpool and even Spurs I doubt were scoring 2. Just seems a bit silly to keep trying this score early tactic....hurts us too much.