Watford (H) Post Match Thread

[blueparrot]

First goal is interesting, spoke this over with a referee last night and he said goal should stand,

Reason being,

If you replace the defender with another city attacker who was onside from aguero pass and he
nips in front of sterling as defender did & scores, the goal would stand as that player was in an
onside position from aguero pass, ref would deem any movement by sterling as inactive in phase.
[eg a direct shot by this onside attacker and it's not touched by sterling at any time in any phase].

He says as defender touch was not a deflection by him from aguero pass but a considered action,
it's now a different phase of play so touch from sterling comes from a defensive player so onside.

Of course, if I had spoken with x3 referees we may have had x1 given the goal, x1 disallowed goal
and the 3rd would probably have given a penalty to United as he usually would have done...

I’m sure a player can be offside without touching the ball, for instance if a player makes a goalkeeper need to make a decision , I think we’ve benefitted from that rule and had an impotrtant goal against us dissallowed in the past. Certain VAR would disallow it.

 

[Chippy_boy]

We shouldn't be so harsh on refs and linesmen. I mean, when they can't tell whether this is offside or not, it must be really difficult for them. This is Liverpools 2nd against West Ham in what was I think the first game of the season. (Note the linesman's view, he can barely see a thing).

This is Milner in the 2nd game:

 

[Neville Kneville]

First goal is interesting, spoke this over with a referee last night and he said goal should stand,

Reason being,

If you replace the defender with another city attacker who was onside from aguero pass and he
nips in front of sterling as defender did & scores, the goal would stand as that player was in an
onside position from aguero pass, ref would deem any movement by sterling as inactive in phase.
[eg a direct shot by this onside attacker and it's not touched by sterling at any time in any phase].

He says as defender touch was not a deflection by him from aguero pass but a considered action,
it's now a different phase of play so touch from sterling comes from a defensive player so onside.

Of course, if I had spoken with x3 referees we may have had x1 given the goal, x1 disallowed goal
and the 3rd would probably have given a penalty to United as he usually would have done...

Which imo is the whole point of having that ridiculous clause inserted into the rule.

They can give what they want.

And the scousers are doing exactly what they have always done, by kicking up such a fuss, it's unlikely we ever get another similar one.

 

[Goater=Legend]

Don't mind Watford, no idea why the manager played that formation though, good passing team.

Foster is a **** though, time-wasting 10 mins in

 

[manchester blue]

I was amazed when our first goal was allowed but then I was certainly not level with the play and I was some considerable distance away. It seems that Sterling was "played onside" by a Watford defender and so the referee was right to award the goal - unless Sterling was active enough to pressure the defender by his presence into playing the ball, in which case the referee could have disallowed the goal. There is a perfectly justified case to do either and the ref's decision was a matter of interpretation. I would have been furious if such a decision had gone against us, but it wouldn't be the first time. This is entirely different from, for example, the goal Liverpool were awarded against West ham. The goal should have been disallowed. However the offside law is interpreted that goal should have been disallowed. The decision to allow Liverpool's goal was simply and completely wrong. And that won Liverpool a point they did not deserve and should not have had. But I know which goal will arouse the anger of the media...

If the goal was disallowed there most certainly would not have been such a debate.

 

[Damanino]

This from February 2019 1 month ago. Milner offside as he is getting the pass after this Mane scored. Lino pretty close to the situation still didnt raise the flag.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Which imo is the whole point of having that ridiculous clause inserted into the rule.

They can give what they want.

And the scousers are doing exactly what they have always done, by kicking up such a fuss, it's unlikely we ever get another similar one.

Exactly.

It's why GLT wasn't introduced for years, why there's been so much resistance to VAR and why we don't have things like Hawkeye which exists in other sports. it's because football, I'm afraid to say is corrupt as hell, from top to bottom. They don't WANT clarity and objectivity, because then the results cannot be manipulated.

Although as we've seen, they need not have worried about VAR, since that seems to be no obstacle at all to overt cheating by officials. A mere inconvenience.

 

[BluessinceHydeRoad]

Seen MOTD now -and first goal should have been given as offside - However subjective the interpretation is - Sterling is active and what is the defender supposed to do - just let it run and trust the officials? - that's not realistic. I would be annoyed if that was given against us - so have to be relieved it was given for us - but would have no complaints if it wasn't.

But it wasn't the turning point for the match - Watford were never going to be able to keep holding out for another 45 minutes. It might have made the ending a little more nervy - but I doubt it. sadly the controversy takes away the focus from another dominant display Sterling came up with the goals but another wonderful centre forward display from Sergio - always dangerous, always available for the pass, worked so hard.

City's first goal was without doubt controversial but this stems from ambiguity in the offside law. This is because there have been so many directives and reinterpretations of it that referees must be dizzy trying to make a decision because of the use of words such as "deliberate". What was Janmaat trying to do "deliberately" when he played the ball? We saw a similar case in the romp against Chelsea. Barclay headed the ball. He headed it "deliberately" though I doubt he tried to head it "deliberately" to Aguero. Aguero was in an offside position when Barclay acted and he was in that position "deliberately" waiting for Barclay's error. When Sergio stuck the ball in the net no-one questioned the legitimacy of the goal. So, did Janmaat play the ball "deliberately"? Well, certainly, seeing as he slid a few yards to do so. Did he intend to play the cannon off Sterling and into the net? Obviously not. Was Sterling offside when Janmaat played the ball? Yes, clearly. Was he played onside? This is where the ref decided that IN HIS OPINION he was. It's certainly not an opinion which is held universally but it is based on a permissible interpretation of the offside law.

As for your contention that it was not THE turning point of the game.... we'll never know, but goals do change games. Our second (and third) followed so hot on the heels of the first that claims that Watford were in disarray for a time cannot be dismissed lightly. But as a City fan I have to say that a goal for City was nowhere near as unexpected or hard to imagine as is now being cliamed in the Sunday papers. City were a model of patience and, as the games with WHU and Bournemouth showed, as the whole season has shown, keeping City at bay for 90 minutes is no easy task at all. Wit that I'm in total agreement.

 

[City Raider]

Gundo has come in and done a great job when we were all worried about Ferna. Similarly Mahrez has stepped up in KDBs absence. Chuffed for both of them.

 

[Neville Kneville]

City's first goal was without doubt controversial but this stems from ambiguity in the offside law. This is because there have been so many directives and reinterpretations of it that referees must be dizzy trying to make a decision because of the use of words such as "deliberate". What was Janmaat trying to do "deliberately" when he played the ball? We saw a similar case in the romp against Chelsea. Barclay headed the ball. He headed it "deliberately" though I doubt he tried to head it "deliberately" to Aguero. Aguero was in an offside position when Barclay acted and he was in that position "deliberately" waiting for Barclay's error. When Sergio stuck the ball in the net no-one questioned the legitimacy of the goal. So, did Janmaat play the ball "deliberately"? Well, certainly, seeing as he slid a few yards to do so. Did he intend to play the cannon off Sterling and into the net? Obviously not. Was Sterling offside when Janmaat played the ball? Yes, clearly. Was he played onside? This is where the ref decided that IN HIS OPINION he was. It's certainly not an opinion which is held universally but it is based on a permissible interpretation of the offside law.

As for your contention that it was not THE turning point of the game.... we'll never know, but goals do change games. Our second (and third) followed so hot on the heels of the first that claims that Watford were in disarray for a time cannot be dismissed lightly. But as a City fan I have to say that a goal for City was nowhere near as unexpected or hard to imagine as is now being cliamed in the Sunday papers. City were a model of patience and, as the games with WHU and Bournemouth showed, as the whole season has shown, keeping City at bay for 90 minutes is no easy task at all. Wit that I'm in total agreement.

They were in disarray for the first too.