comment by Striketeam7 - staying humble (U18109)
posted 32 seconds ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol. You're probably right. Midget cant
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
Don’t see an issue with the Cuty winner tbh
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're arguing it's a foul, not an offside.
As I said, I still disagree, but it's a different issue and nothing to do with the current offside rule.
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're arguing it's a foul, not an offside.
As I said, I still disagree, but it's a different issue and nothing to do with the current offside rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case yes. With Bernardo it just happened to be he was physically impeding the keeper right before he was offside.
Very fine lines.
It's a bit like when Kane pushes players when they're jumping for the ball so they do flips in mid air, they land on him, and he dives to the floor apparently injured after breaking the opposition players back from the 6 foot fall he just made then do.
0 intention of playing the ball, 100% foul in a normal situation, unless you're Kane.
I do think that if you’re in the Dix yard box, you’re interfering with play though. I think that should just be a blanket rule.
As the rule stands though, it’s a goal.
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 34 minutes 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".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean like Rashford and Fernandes against City at Old Trafford the other year?
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 22 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When the header was met, was Silva interfering? Fact is he wasnt. He wasnt in his eye line, he wasnt touching the keeper, keeper had clear sight and unimpeded.
Jostling at set pieces is now a norm. Any player has the right to stand their ground, he doesnt have to get out of the way for the keeper. If he holds him, or may is facing the keeper and not the ball while blocking, then its a foul. Spurs' keeper is blocked every single time and defenders know that you can do this right up until the moment contact is made on the cross. This week he had man mountain Antonio in his face, watching Maddison trying to protect Vicario from Antonio was hilarious
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 34 minutes 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".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean like Rashford and Fernandes against City at Old Trafford the other year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are allowed to block. You are not allowed to hold.
Bernardo and Sa were at each other at all of the 18 corners.
Sa pushed Bern out of the way several times and even flicked his ear on one occasion.
Maybe the goal shouldn't have stood by but the same logic, City should have had 4/5 penalties.
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're arguing it's a foul, not an offside.
As I said, I still disagree, but it's a different issue and nothing to do with the current offside rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case yes. With Bernardo it just happened to be he was physically impeding the keeper right before he was offside.
Very fine lines.
It's a bit like when Kane pushes players when they're jumping for the ball so they do flips in mid air, they land on him, and he dives to the floor apparently injured after breaking the opposition players back from the 6 foot fall he just made then do.
0 intention of playing the ball, 100% foul in a normal situation, unless you're Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree re. Kane, I've always hated that. But don't see how this is like that at all. That's dangerous play, this isn't.
What you're arguing against here is a bit of jostling. Silva has just as much right to be in that position as Sa does when the corner is taken. He then moves out the way before Stones heads it. There is literally nothing wrong with it.
Didn't really see an issue with this decision. I think he makes a fairly reasonable point, but because he's bringing it up around a reasonable decision it just takes away from the point he's trying to make cos he just looks childish.
I think defenders need to do a better job of protecting their keepers.
At a corner, everyone is doing their best to impede and block their opponent. Defenders blocking runners, attackers blocking defenders to make space for runners. That now seems to have been extended to attackers blocking keepers.
IMO, man up, make it a battle. There's no way some midget like Silva should be left alone blocking the keeper. Where's the protection?
I think if that goal was cancelled against us I’d be pretty angry, I can’t see why a big deal is being made of it. Silva went into the keeper before the corner was taken.
I think keepers get way too much protection these days. It’s a joke.
There are a lot of issues in football, but in terms of this goal, nothing wrong at all, move on.
The most annoying thing for me from yesterday's games is how long it takes them to make easy decisions. Once you saw the slow-mo, it was obvious Chelsea's goal was on side, didn't need the lines etc, but they an age making that decision.
VAR has made everyone way too nervous - just make the decision and get on with it. If you need umpteen replys to check it, stick with the ref's original decision, but most decisions you can tell if they are clearly wrong
People still not getting that whatever Silva did before the Stones header didn't exist in the context of the offside decision. It didn't happen. Forget it ever took place.
It is interesting how some people see absolutely no issues with this goal and some do.
Shows you how difficult it is for the "officials", eh?
Amazing how many people think you can be offside from a corner.
Even the linesman didn't know.
My only issue is not making any effort to be involved with the ball and be there as a blocker so to speak ….people can go on about keepers being stronger or defenders getting in there but that’s not the point ….its not American football …..he is fouling the keeper
He wasn’t offside that’s a definite
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 3 minutes ago
My only issue is not making any effort to be involved with the ball and be there as a blocker so to speak ….people can go on about keepers being stronger or defenders getting in there but that’s not the point ….its not American football …..he is fouling the keeper
He wasn’t offside that’s a definite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you watched the whole game you would have seen that Sa 'fouled' Bernardo several times during the previous 17 corners.
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 4 minutes ago
My only issue is not making any effort to be involved with the ball and be there as a blocker so to speak ….people can go on about keepers being stronger or defenders getting in there but that’s not the point ….its not American football …..he is fouling the keeper
He wasn’t offside that’s a definite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he was offside when the header came through and the keeper still had to think about the positioning of Bernardo. It's not like he can just forget he exists.
I'm amazed so many people see no issues with it, to be honest.
https://www.skysports.com/football/video/11095/13220257/gabriel-heads-arsenal-into-lead-at-manchester-city
How many Arsenal players are on Ederson there, Martinelli made a lot more contact than Bernardo did on the GK.
... also 3 Arsenal players 'offside'.
Sign in if you want to comment
Wolves manager Gary O'Neil
Page 2 of 5
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Striketeam7 - staying humble (U18109)
posted 32 seconds ago
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lol. You're probably right. Midget cant
posted on 21/10/24
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
posted on 21/10/24
Don’t see an issue with the Cuty winner tbh
posted on 21/10/24
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're arguing it's a foul, not an offside.
As I said, I still disagree, but it's a different issue and nothing to do with the current offside rule.
posted on 21/10/24
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're arguing it's a foul, not an offside.
As I said, I still disagree, but it's a different issue and nothing to do with the current offside rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case yes. With Bernardo it just happened to be he was physically impeding the keeper right before he was offside.
Very fine lines.
It's a bit like when Kane pushes players when they're jumping for the ball so they do flips in mid air, they land on him, and he dives to the floor apparently injured after breaking the opposition players back from the 6 foot fall he just made then do.
0 intention of playing the ball, 100% foul in a normal situation, unless you're Kane.
posted on 21/10/24
I do think that if you’re in the Dix yard box, you’re interfering with play though. I think that should just be a blanket rule.
As the rule stands though, it’s a goal.
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 34 minutes 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".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean like Rashford and Fernandes against City at Old Trafford the other year?
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 22 minutes ago
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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When the header was met, was Silva interfering? Fact is he wasnt. He wasnt in his eye line, he wasnt touching the keeper, keeper had clear sight and unimpeded.
Jostling at set pieces is now a norm. Any player has the right to stand their ground, he doesnt have to get out of the way for the keeper. If he holds him, or may is facing the keeper and not the ball while blocking, then its a foul. Spurs' keeper is blocked every single time and defenders know that you can do this right up until the moment contact is made on the cross. This week he had man mountain Antonio in his face, watching Maddison trying to protect Vicario from Antonio was hilarious
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 59 seconds ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 34 minutes 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".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you mean like Rashford and Fernandes against City at Old Trafford the other year?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You are allowed to block. You are not allowed to hold.
posted on 21/10/24
Bernardo and Sa were at each other at all of the 18 corners.
Sa pushed Bern out of the way several times and even flicked his ear on one occasion.
Maybe the goal shouldn't have stood by but the same logic, City should have had 4/5 penalties.
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 3 seconds ago
comment by Ali - 🇪🇦 🏴 (U1192)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by -bloodred- (U1222)
posted 47 seconds ago
Nah, the rule's fine. Not really sure how you would update it. At what point are you taking the offside from? The point the corner's taken where you literally can't be offside? It's wouldn't make any sense.
The rule change you seem to be suggesting is that you can't physically interfere with the keeper at all during a set piece. Which is a different matter, though again not one I agree with.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It can't be fine if those sorts of goals are allowed to stand.
Why are you allowed to block a keeper if you have absolutely no intention of playing the ball, offside or not offside?
If I blocked someone making a run, and the ball wasn't anywhere near us, it would be a foul, no?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So then you're arguing it's a foul, not an offside.
As I said, I still disagree, but it's a different issue and nothing to do with the current offside rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In this case yes. With Bernardo it just happened to be he was physically impeding the keeper right before he was offside.
Very fine lines.
It's a bit like when Kane pushes players when they're jumping for the ball so they do flips in mid air, they land on him, and he dives to the floor apparently injured after breaking the opposition players back from the 6 foot fall he just made then do.
0 intention of playing the ball, 100% foul in a normal situation, unless you're Kane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree re. Kane, I've always hated that. But don't see how this is like that at all. That's dangerous play, this isn't.
What you're arguing against here is a bit of jostling. Silva has just as much right to be in that position as Sa does when the corner is taken. He then moves out the way before Stones heads it. There is literally nothing wrong with it.
posted on 21/10/24
Didn't really see an issue with this decision. I think he makes a fairly reasonable point, but because he's bringing it up around a reasonable decision it just takes away from the point he's trying to make cos he just looks childish.
posted on 21/10/24
I think defenders need to do a better job of protecting their keepers.
At a corner, everyone is doing their best to impede and block their opponent. Defenders blocking runners, attackers blocking defenders to make space for runners. That now seems to have been extended to attackers blocking keepers.
IMO, man up, make it a battle. There's no way some midget like Silva should be left alone blocking the keeper. Where's the protection?
posted on 21/10/24
I think if that goal was cancelled against us I’d be pretty angry, I can’t see why a big deal is being made of it. Silva went into the keeper before the corner was taken.
posted on 21/10/24
I think keepers get way too much protection these days. It’s a joke.
posted on 21/10/24
There are a lot of issues in football, but in terms of this goal, nothing wrong at all, move on.
The most annoying thing for me from yesterday's games is how long it takes them to make easy decisions. Once you saw the slow-mo, it was obvious Chelsea's goal was on side, didn't need the lines etc, but they an age making that decision.
VAR has made everyone way too nervous - just make the decision and get on with it. If you need umpteen replys to check it, stick with the ref's original decision, but most decisions you can tell if they are clearly wrong
posted on 21/10/24
People still not getting that whatever Silva did before the Stones header didn't exist in the context of the offside decision. It didn't happen. Forget it ever took place.
posted on 21/10/24
It is interesting how some people see absolutely no issues with this goal and some do.
Shows you how difficult it is for the "officials", eh?
posted on 21/10/24
Amazing how many people think you can be offside from a corner.
Even the linesman didn't know.
posted on 21/10/24
My only issue is not making any effort to be involved with the ball and be there as a blocker so to speak ….people can go on about keepers being stronger or defenders getting in there but that’s not the point ….its not American football …..he is fouling the keeper
He wasn’t offside that’s a definite
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 3 minutes ago
My only issue is not making any effort to be involved with the ball and be there as a blocker so to speak ….people can go on about keepers being stronger or defenders getting in there but that’s not the point ….its not American football …..he is fouling the keeper
He wasn’t offside that’s a definite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you watched the whole game you would have seen that Sa 'fouled' Bernardo several times during the previous 17 corners.
posted on 21/10/24
comment by Blackpolespur (U9242)
posted 4 minutes ago
My only issue is not making any effort to be involved with the ball and be there as a blocker so to speak ….people can go on about keepers being stronger or defenders getting in there but that’s not the point ….its not American football …..he is fouling the keeper
He wasn’t offside that’s a definite
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But he was offside when the header came through and the keeper still had to think about the positioning of Bernardo. It's not like he can just forget he exists.
I'm amazed so many people see no issues with it, to be honest.
posted on 21/10/24
https://www.skysports.com/football/video/11095/13220257/gabriel-heads-arsenal-into-lead-at-manchester-city
How many Arsenal players are on Ederson there, Martinelli made a lot more contact than Bernardo did on the GK.
posted on 21/10/24
... also 3 Arsenal players 'offside'.
Page 2 of 5