I'm not. I just don't think it's enough and for someone saying that I'm trying to get into his head that seems to be exactly what you seem to be doing with the first sentence. As I said it's fine to disagree. I'm not telling you you're wrong but you seem to be convinced yours is the only correct opinion when there's no consensus on this one.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
There was a time not long ago where being offside was offside, that's it, full stop.
They've changed the rule to stop ruling out goals where a player isn't involved / interfering. This is great, you'd not want a corner taker being slow to get back onside to rule out a goal, etc.
Dumfries is in the 6 yard box, he's in the centre of the goal, he's stayed in an offside position, it's his fault the goal gets ruled out. Players want to blame the officials in these instances, but the player is in a position where if the ball comes to him then he's going to have his goal ruled out.
The real solution here is to get back onside so that you're not having to rely on the officials ruling that you're an inanimate object.
They've changed the rule to stop ruling out goals where a player isn't involved / interfering. This is great, you'd not want a corner taker being slow to get back onside to rule out a goal, etc.
Dumfries is in the 6 yard box, he's in the centre of the goal, he's stayed in an offside position, it's his fault the goal gets ruled out. Players want to blame the officials in these instances, but the player is in a position where if the ball comes to him then he's going to have his goal ruled out.
The real solution here is to get back onside so that you're not having to rely on the officials ruling that you're an inanimate object.
How can you know he’s not aware of the player though, in any way? You don’t just dive ‘anyway’ if you know there’s a human being right next to you. This is the issue, it’s not if it was going to be saved, it’s if the goalkeeper has been affected, no matter how little, by an offside player.
If you agree the player was interfering in play because he's stood next to keeper, you can ascertain that from a still image. It takes mere seconds to reach the conclusion. There wasn't several angels where the player's position was unclear to muddy the situation. The issue is PL refs have no expectation or obligation to expedite their decisions
They enjoy the eyes on them.
They enjoy the eyes on them.
Did I say that in a previous post, I didn't say it in the one you replied to?
Does it say that in the rules though? Does it mention minimal affect on the keeper or is it more about preventing another player from playing the ball?
Goalies dive into contact all the time so I don't really agree on that point. It's an interpretation either way though and it's not a clear cut incident.
I'm not trying to get in his head. I'm saying we can't know either way whether he's seen Dumfries and whether Dumfries' presence affected what he did, and so you can't use a lack of dive as evidence of anything, because the lack of dive might have been influenced by those factors.
Again, the subjectivity is not whether Maignan could have made or tried to make a save.
The subjectivity is whether Dumfries was in a position, relative to Maignan and the ball, that interfered with play.
If the goal had stood, it wouldn't have been based on Maignan not diving, it'd have been based on them determining Dumfries' position relative to Maignan and the ball wasn't such that it could be deemed an "interference".
As he was stood directly between Maignan and the ball, it was pretty clear cut.
The issue for me is how long it took to make an obvious decision . That begs the question , would var have intervened to overrule a clear and obvious refereeing error if it had not been disallowed by the onfield officials?
They took way too long to agree the right decision was made , that suggests to me , that even the most obvious ( which i feel that was ) decision is open to interpretation.
.
They took way too long to agree the right decision was made , that suggests to me , that even the most obvious ( which i feel that was ) decision is open to interpretation.
.
I'm not using the lack of a dive as evidence of anything. I'm using the fact that he didn't dive as the basis of my decision (He also wasn't set to dive in that direction which is less important as that leads to the grey area of what you're suggesting I'm saying) . I'm just repeating myself now and you're constantly misinterpreting what I've said so I'll leave it there.
Fixed that for you. Keeper was never saving the shot, it went past him before he knew what was going on.
I'm not misinterpreting you. You're just not making anywhere near as much sense as you seem to believe you are. The first two sentences you've written there are completely contradictory. If it's the basis of your decision, then it's being used as evidence to support your decision.
Therefore, in using it as evidence for the basis of your decision, you're willfully ignoring why Maignan might not have dived. It might have been that he knew he wasn't getting there. It might have been that he simply didn't see the shot until it was too late. It might have been because he'd clocked the six foot tall footballer in a bright orange kit stood directly in his way. It is the latter possibility that makes "not diving" irrelevant.
Again, the only things that matter are:
- Maignan's position
- The path of the ball
- Dumfries' position relative to both
Dumfries doesn't stop the keeper from saving the ball. Don't want to see offside there in principle, even though with the modern guidance they'll disallow it and it's not a wrong decision.
There have been worse ones from corners, one in the Asian cup iirc. If the player isn't actually stopping the keeper and isn't gaining an advantage it shouldn't be offside.
There have been worse ones from corners, one in the Asian cup iirc. If the player isn't actually stopping the keeper and isn't gaining an advantage it shouldn't be offside.
Ok mate. There's a difference between what I'm saying and what you're interpreting it as. The fact that he didn't dive means he wasn't blocked to me. Anything else you're suggesting is some nebulous interpretation of what's going through his mind which I'm not doing.
You also seen to have no room to accept opinions other than your own. Good luck
Duh! Of course not
Blatant offside by the rules, don't know what all the fuss is about.
If you don’t think that how can you not think it’s offside then?
I don’t know what it says in the rules but given the decision being given I’d say I understand it properly whereas you are the one arguing it’s wrong?
Well you could look them up. The reason they gave it is likely that they determined that the attacker was preventing the keeper from reaching the ball. My issue is he didn't even try to get to the ball and furthermore wasn't even set to dive that way after the first save.
Again as I've said, that's my interpretation and there are other interpretations. Some fans/pundits agree and some don't. I think it's a bit of a soft decision personally.
Im not going to go read the exact wording of the offside law but, again, it seems like it’s you who needs to. From ESPN.
I can accept an opinion that makes sense. Yours doesn't. You keep repeating that I'm misinterpreting you but haven't made any sense in explaining how.
You literally just claimed not to be using something as evidence, only to immediately follow that up with the claim that the very same thing you're not using as evidence is, in fact, the thing that your decision is based on (i.e. that thing is evidence supporting your decision).
I'm also not interpreting what's going through his mind. I'm doing the opposite. I've pointed out a few things that could have been, but the point is that we can't possibly know which (if any) are correct, so you can't use the decision not to dive as evidence of anything.
Even the bold doesn't make sense. Do you have to physically collide with something blocking your path for it to actually count as blocking? Or is the fact that we aren't incorporeal and thus unable to phase through objects or other beings enough to say, "that's blocking the way" when, for example, an opposition player stands between the goalkeeper and the ball he'd like to try and stop from going into his goal?
Just to wrap this up, here's the law:
Nothing about likelihood of actually playing the ball. Nothing about actually having to attempt to play the ball. Explicitly says "preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision".
Dumfries was clearly obstructing Maignan's line of vision and preventing him from being able to play the ball, because he was stood within a yard of him, directly in the way of the ball.
It's the massive contradiction in his argument.
He's said he's not interpreting Maignan's thoughts, but by using "not diving" as the crux, he has, by default, dismissed the possibility that Dumfries being so close and in the way of the ball was a factor in the decision not to dive, and has therefore interpreted Maignan's thoughts. To accept this possibility is to acknowledge that he's interfering with play, and that the decision was correct.
Last edited:
There's no fixing required . It's your opinion that the keeper never saves the shot , you might be correct , but it's subjective . it doesn't alter the fact that there was an offside player , a real life obstruction between where ball ended up and where keeper needed to get to .
If hes onside , it's a goal . He wasn't , so he's interfering . It's that simple .
I wasn't going to reply but he's absolutely not blocking his line of vision.
That only comes into play if you're blocking the keeper's view of the shot and are between the keeper and the player taking the shot. It's the next part of the rule that's relevant. I'm definitely done now. I've just arrived at my cousin's for pre-gig drinks.
So Maignan was able to look through Dumfries, at the ball, as it passed the other side of him?I wasn't going to reply but he's absolutely not blocking his line of vision.
That only comes into play if you're blocking the keeper's view of the shot and are between the keeper and the player taking the shot. It's the next part of the rule that's relevant. I'm definitely done now. I've just arrived at my cousin's for pre-gig drinks.
He’s really not. The keeper attempts to save it and fails because he went with his feet, he was slow to react, the Netherlands player is irrelevant, It’s a clear goal.
IF the keeper dived because he wasn’t slow to react, it’s a different story.
That's never how that section of the rule is applied. If you have to be blocking the view of the kicker/flight of the ball. Dumfries was doing neither. You're not helping yourself at all here.
The law quite clearly states "being able to play the ball" too.
Do you want to explain how having a player within a yard of you, in the exact direction you need to move, isn't interfering with your ability to play the ball?
Also, not helping myself?
I'm not the one who claimed not be using something as evidence when it's the exact same thing I've admitted I'm basing my argument on.
I'm also not the one claiming not to be interpreting the keeper's thoughts while also outright dismissing something that he very possibly could have been thinking of.
Carry on though.
@Withnail I'll make it very simple for you.
My view is this:
Dumfries was offside. He was stood very close to Maignan, directly between him and the ball.
Even if Maignan was perfectly sighted, perfectly set, and was the best goalkeeper the world had ever seen, Dumfries, standing where he was, rendered any attempt at a save that might have been made fruitless.
As we can only speculate on how well sighted Maignan was, how well set he was to dive, and his abilities to pull of a save in that moment, they are redundant factors when it comes to making the decision. The law reflects this.
Your view is:
Maignan didn't dive into Dumfries so it wasn't offside.
However, regardless of how Maignan came to the decision not to dive, the implication of your view is that Maignan could not have possibly taken Dumfries into account, because for you to acknowledge that possibility is to acknowledge that Dumfries could have been interfering.
Your argument doesn't stand up to the simplest bit of scrutiny, no matter how many times you repeat it.
My view is this:
Dumfries was offside. He was stood very close to Maignan, directly between him and the ball.
Even if Maignan was perfectly sighted, perfectly set, and was the best goalkeeper the world had ever seen, Dumfries, standing where he was, rendered any attempt at a save that might have been made fruitless.
As we can only speculate on how well sighted Maignan was, how well set he was to dive, and his abilities to pull of a save in that moment, they are redundant factors when it comes to making the decision. The law reflects this.
Your view is:
Maignan didn't dive into Dumfries so it wasn't offside.
However, regardless of how Maignan came to the decision not to dive, the implication of your view is that Maignan could not have possibly taken Dumfries into account, because for you to acknowledge that possibility is to acknowledge that Dumfries could have been interfering.
Your argument doesn't stand up to the simplest bit of scrutiny, no matter how many times you repeat it.
Games gone .
@Withnail i feel like you’re confusing debating the law itself with what happened in this scenario.
They need to get those foreigners off VAR. Who do they think they are, coming in making these decisions so quickly and getting them (mostly) right?
#justice4PLrefs
#justice4PLrefs
Yawn. If you knew the rule you were supposedly applying your argument would have more weight.
It's quite funny you're continuing this with multiple posts when I've told you I accepted your logic, obviously that was before you admitted applying a rule that's irrelevant to the incident. I've no idea why you're pushing this so hard. We have different interpretations of an incident. I've said multiple times that I accept your logic but disagree because it's not clear cut.
It's getting a bit weird now mate. I'm allowed to have my interpretation and I accept yours, well before you quoted the wrong section of the rule
Honestly I've no idea why you've such a hard on over this but ok you do you do and I'll do me, fair?
Oh well honestly review the rules and make your own decision. Professing not to know the rules and then quoting a Sports channel's interpretation of the rules doesn't really hold much weight for me.
What's your opinion? I'm not interested in what ESPN have to say.
You have no logic, as I highlighted.Yawn. If you knew the rule you were supposedly applying your argument would have more weight.
It's quite funny you're continuing this with multiple posts when I've told you I accepted your logic, obviously that was before you admitted applying a rule that's irrelevant to the incident. I've no idea why you're pushing this so hard. We have different interpretations of an incident. I've said multiple times that I accept your logic but disagree because it's not clear cut.
It's getting a bit weird now mate. I'm allowed to have my interpretation and I accept yours, well before you quoted the wrong section of the rule
Honestly I've no idea why you've such a hard on over this but ok you do you do and I'll do me, fair?
Also, you're the one who responded after saying he was done and was going to a gig, and then again at 1am.
You literally just skirt around trying to explain your point (because you know it doesn't make sense), instead pointing out part of the law (that you've not referred to at all) that you think doesn't apply, and accusing others of being "weird".
I hadn’t looked up the wording for the offside rule, I’m fairly certain most don’t need to. I since did and it confirms - as the article says - that what people are saying to you is correct. I’m really not sure what you’re arguing here because it’s been proven categorically wrong so your issue is with the actual law (that’s fine) not with what happened (clear cut offside).
I haven't actually been arguing for a very long time and I haven't told anyone they were wrong so there's that.
Well you replied to me and then you also quoted me.
It's the part of the rule you quoted earlier which doesn't apply and I told you at the time. You know the bit where you thought it he was blocking his line of vision.
You're claiming I've no logic but you've apparently based this whole tiresome exchange on the irrelevant section, unless you retro-fitted that argument when you eventually checked the rule.
It's the bit about interfering with his ability to play the ball which applies.
My contention all along has been that you have to actually try to play the ball for that to come into play. Maignan didn't do that.
Not sure how either is relevant? As below post to Alex99 you’re proving your issue is with the law itself because your ‘contention’ is irrelevant to the actual law.
Well now that you've looked up the law:
Do you think you can interfere with a players movement towards the ball when they're not, in fact, attempting to move towards the ball?
I hadn't bothered reading the actual wording until your exchange with tomaldinho, and I just copied the bit BBC Sport included in their piece about the goal.
My argument is based on a player obviously being in the way of the goalkeeper. The wording or specific part of the law made little odds, because the law obviously covers players being in the way of the goalkeeper.
Are you genuinely arguing that you're not interfering with a player's ability to play the ball when you're stood directly in their way of it?
Well exactly. You didn't know the law at all. You just decided I was wrong and that was that. How tedious of you. Goodbye
I knew the law, just not the exact wording.
You seem to think blocking requires an actual collision, which is bizarre.
You could cut the sexual tension in here with a knife.
Apart from the fact your interpretation is wrong, just to end your argument, he does move towards the ball… have you seen the replay?