We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the ones you're referring to but they're not the same.
The only thing that needs to be questioned is whether Bernardo was interfering with the keeper as Stones headed the ball, as he can't be offside from the initial corner. And he wasn't at all. The only other possible issue is whether he'd fouled the keeper, and again he hadn't.
It's a goal all day, not sure why this is even an issue (or why VAR even recommended a review).
I saw a great picture before on FB of 3 Arsenal players practically assaulting Ederson just as Gabriel scored against City.
Maybe GON should look at that if he thinks City get all the decisions
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the ones you're referring to but they're not the same.
The only thing that needs to be questioned is whether Bernardo was interfering with the keeper as Stones headed the ball, as he can't be offside from the initial corner. And he wasn't at all. The only other possible issue is whether he'd fouled the keeper, and again he hadn't.
It's a goal all day, not sure why this is even an issue (or why VAR even recommended a review).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR recommended the review because the linesman gave it as offside for interfering. VAR cleared it up. I think only now are stupid people starting to understand why it wasn't offside after trying to explain it to them multiple times after the match yesterday. A lot of them still failing to understand though. Who'd have thought there were so many stupid football fans?
VAR recommended the review because the linesman gave it as offside for interfering
-----------------
Ahh OK, makes sense. Thought the goal was initially given.
I think the ref should give a FK if any player is seen blocking the GK with no intention of playing the ball.
I remember Van Dijk’s goal being disallowed in the league cup final last season because a Liverpool player blocked Colwill. Same thing surely?
comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the ones you're referring to but they're not the same.
The only thing that needs to be questioned is whether Bernardo was interfering with the keeper as Stones headed the ball, as he can't be offside from the initial corner. And he wasn't at all. The only other possible issue is whether he'd fouled the keeper, and again he hadn't.
It's a goal all day, not sure why this is even an issue (or why VAR even recommended a review).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR recommended the review because the linesman gave it as offside for interfering. VAR cleared it up. I think only now are stupid people starting to understand why it wasn't offside after trying to explain it to them multiple times after the match yesterday. A lot of them still failing to understand though. Who'd have thought there were so many stupid football fans?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, the rules changing every 5 minutes doesn’t help either - Saliba’s red and Tosin’s yellow - I thought both were reds. The second penalty the ref initially gave against Chelsea because the keeper made a save - what the actual faaaack did the ref think he saw there, crazy. Raya not getting sent off because of the double jeopardy rule.
Handball rules - these are fun and games now. Blast a ball at a defender stood on the goal line, if it hits his hand in a natural position and stays out it’s no pen. Blast a ball at an attacker stood on the 18 yard line, if it hits his hand in a natural position it’s not handball - if he then lashes it into the top corner, it then becomes a hand ball as it’s in the commission of a goal.
Mickey Van Der Ven was booked on Saturday for the offence of being stamped on twice by Kudus - and the ref was only going to book Kudus for 2 stamps and a push to the face - bizarre
I remember Van Dijk’s goal being disallowed in the league cup final last season because a Liverpool player blocked Colwill. Same thing surely?
-----------------
No it's not the same thing, since that was a free kick and this was a corner. Which means in this case you judge the offside from when Stones heads it, and not when the corner is taken.
Warnock and Gallagher in ref watch mansplaining to Smith today was enjoyable.
They both told her that cause you can’t be offside from a corner, there is an amnesty on fouls until the attacking side touch the ball.
Of course, they were both talking bolllox
Kudus was booked for his kicks and shove on VDV.
But then reviewed the double handed palm in Sarr's face and got a red. Why did they cancel the first yellow. Surely that should have still stood and red for the Sarr assault.
Also, Saints had a man sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box...so pen and red. Double jeopardy. But not the same rule applied to a keeper?
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
Kudus was booked for his kicks and shove on VDV.
But then reviewed the double handed palm in Sarr's face and got a red. Why did they cancel the first yellow. Surely that should have still stood and red for the Sarr assault.
Also, Saints had a man sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box...so pen and red. Double jeopardy. But not the same rule applied to a keeper?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought there should have been at least 2, possibly 3 reds given to Kudus on Saturday.
Doesn't the double jeopardy rule only apply where there is intent to play the ball? There clearly wasn't in the case of the Saints defender, there was in Raya's case. Saints do have the right to feel aggrieved about not being awarded a pen at the other end for something similar though.
Re. Kudus- definitely 3 separate red card offenses there. Not sure what the rules are, wonder if his ban gets increased.
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
Kudus was booked for his kicks and shove on VDV.
But then reviewed the double handed palm in Sarr's face and got a red. Why did they cancel the first yellow. Surely that should have still stood and red for the Sarr assault.
Also, Saints had a man sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box...so pen and red. Double jeopardy. But not the same rule applied to a keeper?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t forget VDV was booked for pushing Kudus away in the chest - that was deemed the same level of severity by the ref as two stamps of a player on the ground and a shove to the face - one of the most baffling decisions I have ever seen on a football pitch.
Kudos lost the plot
He kicked VDV when on the floor….was deliberate and nowhere the ball ….which is why VDV reacted …..the kick was potential red card
Pushed VDV in the face ….potential red card
Sarr pushed in face ….easy red card
Yet gets away with a 2 game ban maximum ….still shocked VDV was booked
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 1 minute ago
Doesn't the double jeopardy rule only apply where there is intent to play the ball? There clearly wasn't in the case of the Saints defender, there was in Raya's case. Saints do have the right to feel aggrieved about not being awarded a pen at the other end for something similar though.
Re. Kudus- definitely 3 separate red card offenses there. Not sure what the rules are, wonder if his ban gets increased.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct, it was introduced to stop keepers being sent off when they come out to claim a ball and the attackers gets to it marginally before them - a pen and red card being too harsh a punishment.
I agree with this rule to be honest - the keeper has a right to come for it and will on occasions be beaten to the ball, it shouldn’t be a guaranteed red.
Where the rule is dangerous is with DOGSO’s for outfield players, Saliba was (correctly imo) deemed that Saturday but Tosin’s wasn’t I believe on the basis that the ball over the top was veering away to the right of the goal meaning a defender may have got back - I think this creates a huge problem with applying the rule consistently. Essentially the fouls and intention are the same, the only difference being if they think a defender might get back. Spurs had one against Qarabag that was nailed on, but I still would have bet on VDV getting back due to how faaacking rapid he is
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 7 minutes ago
Kudos lost the plot
He kicked VDV when on the floor….was deliberate and nowhere the ball ….which is why VDV reacted …..the kick was potential red card
Pushed VDV in the face ….potential red card
Sarr pushed in face ….easy red card
Yet gets away with a 2 game ban maximum ….still shocked VDV was booked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That ref shouldn’t be getting a match this weekend - player welfare is paramount and he didn’t seem to have the first clue about what had actually occurred - VAR should not have been needed and now VDV has an absolutely bollox yellow card for nothing
I dunno but to me that goal should have been disallowed.
I don't give a sheet what the official ruling on it is but Bernardo leant back into the keeper about 1.5 seconds before the goal went in while he was miles offside.
If that isn't interfering with play, then what the fk is?
This is an extreme example but picture it this way.
If Wolves had a player through on goal, and another wolves player (who was 3 metres offside) was deliberately blocking a city player getting to the player with the ball and then they score, it would 100% be disallowed.
Why is this any different? You've got cants offside distractions and blocking the keeper from moving and for some reason it's "OK".
I watched motd2 earlier and watched Bernardo do the same thing on at least two other corners
He just stood in front of the keeper blocking him
It’s interfering with play 100%
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
This is an extreme example but picture it this way.
If Wolves had a player through on goal, and another wolves player (who was 3 metres offside) was deliberately blocking a city player getting to the player with the ball and then they score, it would 100% be disallowed.
Why is this any different? You've got cants offside distractions and blocking the keeper from moving and for some reason it's "OK".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that scenario though, the Wolves player blocking the City player would be interfering - the goal was given Sunday because it was deemed Silva did not interfere.
I think it was a tight call and yes on another day VAR may not have got involved, but I don’t see a grand conspiracy here, just a tight call with City getting the rub of the green and Wolves not
I know people are going to say "but it's a corner he's not offside". Yes, you are correct, but the rule is ridiculous regardless.
For the ball to go into the net, it would have needed someone to either kick or head it in, which means Bernardo was deliberately there to be a cant and after the kick or header, would be offside.
The rule needs updating, imo.
the goal was given Sunday because it was deemed Silva did not interfere.
---
That's because the people making the rules are idiots
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 29 seconds ago
the goal was given Sunday because it was deemed Silva did not interfere.
---
That's because the people making the rules are idiots
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with that. They keep trying to solve things that didn’t need solving.
Growing up the offside rule and handball rules were easy - you would obviously get issues from time to time, but since the “fixes” it has gone mental.
This might sound, but I guarantee you part of the reason that Silva was seen as not to interfere will be down to how short he is - if that’s Silva heading and Stones stood in the way I don’t think they reverse it
Just because Silva massively distracted the keeper for 1 second while he was onside, the next 0.5 seconds from the header to the goal he was offside, and they're basing the decision on that. Ridiculous no?
How can you go from interfering with the keeper to not interfering in the space of 0.5 seconds?
Sign in if you want to comment
Wolves manager Gary O'Neil
Page 1 of 5
posted on 21/10/24
He sounds like a Gooner
posted on 21/10/24
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the ones you're referring to but they're not the same.
The only thing that needs to be questioned is whether Bernardo was interfering with the keeper as Stones headed the ball, as he can't be offside from the initial corner. And he wasn't at all. The only other possible issue is whether he'd fouled the keeper, and again he hadn't.
It's a goal all day, not sure why this is even an issue (or why VAR even recommended a review).
posted on 21/10/24
I saw a great picture before on FB of 3 Arsenal players practically assaulting Ederson just as Gabriel scored against City.
Maybe GON should look at that if he thinks City get all the decisions
posted on 21/10/24
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the ones you're referring to but they're not the same.
The only thing that needs to be questioned is whether Bernardo was interfering with the keeper as Stones headed the ball, as he can't be offside from the initial corner. And he wasn't at all. The only other possible issue is whether he'd fouled the keeper, and again he hadn't.
It's a goal all day, not sure why this is even an issue (or why VAR even recommended a review).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR recommended the review because the linesman gave it as offside for interfering. VAR cleared it up. I think only now are stupid people starting to understand why it wasn't offside after trying to explain it to them multiple times after the match yesterday. A lot of them still failing to understand though. Who'd have thought there were so many stupid football fans?
posted on 21/10/24
VAR recommended the review because the linesman gave it as offside for interfering
-----------------
Ahh OK, makes sense. Thought the goal was initially given.
posted on 21/10/24
I think the ref should give a FK if any player is seen blocking the GK with no intention of playing the ball.
I remember Van Dijk’s goal being disallowed in the league cup final last season because a Liverpool player blocked Colwill. Same thing surely?
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Fabián Caballero (U1734)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Busby (U19985)
posted 3 minutes ago
We’ve seen those goals disallowed for us tbf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I know the ones you're referring to but they're not the same.
The only thing that needs to be questioned is whether Bernardo was interfering with the keeper as Stones headed the ball, as he can't be offside from the initial corner. And he wasn't at all. The only other possible issue is whether he'd fouled the keeper, and again he hadn't.
It's a goal all day, not sure why this is even an issue (or why VAR even recommended a review).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VAR recommended the review because the linesman gave it as offside for interfering. VAR cleared it up. I think only now are stupid people starting to understand why it wasn't offside after trying to explain it to them multiple times after the match yesterday. A lot of them still failing to understand though. Who'd have thought there were so many stupid football fans?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair, the rules changing every 5 minutes doesn’t help either - Saliba’s red and Tosin’s yellow - I thought both were reds. The second penalty the ref initially gave against Chelsea because the keeper made a save - what the actual faaaack did the ref think he saw there, crazy. Raya not getting sent off because of the double jeopardy rule.
Handball rules - these are fun and games now. Blast a ball at a defender stood on the goal line, if it hits his hand in a natural position and stays out it’s no pen. Blast a ball at an attacker stood on the 18 yard line, if it hits his hand in a natural position it’s not handball - if he then lashes it into the top corner, it then becomes a hand ball as it’s in the commission of a goal.
Mickey Van Der Ven was booked on Saturday for the offence of being stamped on twice by Kudus - and the ref was only going to book Kudus for 2 stamps and a push to the face - bizarre
posted on 21/10/24
I remember Van Dijk’s goal being disallowed in the league cup final last season because a Liverpool player blocked Colwill. Same thing surely?
-----------------
No it's not the same thing, since that was a free kick and this was a corner. Which means in this case you judge the offside from when Stones heads it, and not when the corner is taken.
posted on 21/10/24
Warnock and Gallagher in ref watch mansplaining to Smith today was enjoyable.
They both told her that cause you can’t be offside from a corner, there is an amnesty on fouls until the attacking side touch the ball.
Of course, they were both talking bolllox
posted on 21/10/24
Kudus was booked for his kicks and shove on VDV.
But then reviewed the double handed palm in Sarr's face and got a red. Why did they cancel the first yellow. Surely that should have still stood and red for the Sarr assault.
Also, Saints had a man sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box...so pen and red. Double jeopardy. But not the same rule applied to a keeper?
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 1 minute ago
Kudus was booked for his kicks and shove on VDV.
But then reviewed the double handed palm in Sarr's face and got a red. Why did they cancel the first yellow. Surely that should have still stood and red for the Sarr assault.
Also, Saints had a man sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box...so pen and red. Double jeopardy. But not the same rule applied to a keeper?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I thought there should have been at least 2, possibly 3 reds given to Kudus on Saturday.
posted on 21/10/24
Doesn't the double jeopardy rule only apply where there is intent to play the ball? There clearly wasn't in the case of the Saints defender, there was in Raya's case. Saints do have the right to feel aggrieved about not being awarded a pen at the other end for something similar though.
Re. Kudus- definitely 3 separate red card offenses there. Not sure what the rules are, wonder if his ban gets increased.
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Devonshirespur (U6316)
posted 5 minutes ago
Kudus was booked for his kicks and shove on VDV.
But then reviewed the double handed palm in Sarr's face and got a red. Why did they cancel the first yellow. Surely that should have still stood and red for the Sarr assault.
Also, Saints had a man sent off for denying a goal scoring opportunity in the box...so pen and red. Double jeopardy. But not the same rule applied to a keeper?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Don’t forget VDV was booked for pushing Kudus away in the chest - that was deemed the same level of severity by the ref as two stamps of a player on the ground and a shove to the face - one of the most baffling decisions I have ever seen on a football pitch.
posted on 21/10/24
Kudos lost the plot
He kicked VDV when on the floor….was deliberate and nowhere the ball ….which is why VDV reacted …..the kick was potential red card
Pushed VDV in the face ….potential red card
Sarr pushed in face ….easy red card
Yet gets away with a 2 game ban maximum ….still shocked VDV was booked
posted on 21/10/24
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 1 minute ago
Doesn't the double jeopardy rule only apply where there is intent to play the ball? There clearly wasn't in the case of the Saints defender, there was in Raya's case. Saints do have the right to feel aggrieved about not being awarded a pen at the other end for something similar though.
Re. Kudus- definitely 3 separate red card offenses there. Not sure what the rules are, wonder if his ban gets increased.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct, it was introduced to stop keepers being sent off when they come out to claim a ball and the attackers gets to it marginally before them - a pen and red card being too harsh a punishment.
I agree with this rule to be honest - the keeper has a right to come for it and will on occasions be beaten to the ball, it shouldn’t be a guaranteed red.
Where the rule is dangerous is with DOGSO’s for outfield players, Saliba was (correctly imo) deemed that Saturday but Tosin’s wasn’t I believe on the basis that the ball over the top was veering away to the right of the goal meaning a defender may have got back - I think this creates a huge problem with applying the rule consistently. Essentially the fouls and intention are the same, the only difference being if they think a defender might get back. Spurs had one against Qarabag that was nailed on, but I still would have bet on VDV getting back due to how faaacking rapid he is
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 7 minutes ago
Kudos lost the plot
He kicked VDV when on the floor….was deliberate and nowhere the ball ….which is why VDV reacted …..the kick was potential red card
Pushed VDV in the face ….potential red card
Sarr pushed in face ….easy red card
Yet gets away with a 2 game ban maximum ….still shocked VDV was booked
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That ref shouldn’t be getting a match this weekend - player welfare is paramount and he didn’t seem to have the first clue about what had actually occurred - VAR should not have been needed and now VDV has an absolutely bollox yellow card for nothing
posted on 21/10/24
I dunno but to me that goal should have been disallowed.
I don't give a sheet what the official ruling on it is but Bernardo leant back into the keeper about 1.5 seconds before the goal went in while he was miles offside.
If that isn't interfering with play, then what the fk is?
posted on 21/10/24
This is an extreme example but picture it this way.
If Wolves had a player through on goal, and another wolves player (who was 3 metres offside) was deliberately blocking a city player getting to the player with the ball and then they score, it would 100% be disallowed.
Why is this any different? You've got cants offside distractions and blocking the keeper from moving and for some reason it's "OK".
posted on 21/10/24
I watched motd2 earlier and watched Bernardo do the same thing on at least two other corners
He just stood in front of the keeper blocking him
It’s interfering with play 100%
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
This is an extreme example but picture it this way.
If Wolves had a player through on goal, and another wolves player (who was 3 metres offside) was deliberately blocking a city player getting to the player with the ball and then they score, it would 100% be disallowed.
Why is this any different? You've got cants offside distractions and blocking the keeper from moving and for some reason it's "OK".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In that scenario though, the Wolves player blocking the City player would be interfering - the goal was given Sunday because it was deemed Silva did not interfere.
I think it was a tight call and yes on another day VAR may not have got involved, but I don’t see a grand conspiracy here, just a tight call with City getting the rub of the green and Wolves not
posted on 21/10/24
I know people are going to say "but it's a corner he's not offside". Yes, you are correct, but the rule is ridiculous regardless.
For the ball to go into the net, it would have needed someone to either kick or head it in, which means Bernardo was deliberately there to be a cant and after the kick or header, would be offside.
The rule needs updating, imo.
posted on 21/10/24
the goal was given Sunday because it was deemed Silva did not interfere.
---
That's because the people making the rules are idiots
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 29 seconds ago
the goal was given Sunday because it was deemed Silva did not interfere.
---
That's because the people making the rules are idiots
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with that. They keep trying to solve things that didn’t need solving.
Growing up the offside rule and handball rules were easy - you would obviously get issues from time to time, but since the “fixes” it has gone mental.
This might sound, but I guarantee you part of the reason that Silva was seen as not to interfere will be down to how short he is - if that’s Silva heading and Stones stood in the way I don’t think they reverse it
posted on 21/10/24
Just because Silva massively distracted the keeper for 1 second while he was onside, the next 0.5 seconds from the header to the goal he was offside, and they're basing the decision on that. Ridiculous no?
How can you go from interfering with the keeper to not interfering in the space of 0.5 seconds?
Page 1 of 5