And people talk about rules. Beyond ridiculous but we are used to it.
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
Not really, just as stones heads it, Sa is pushing silva away from him. With the speed of the game its an interference, but even if you think 50 50 and go citys way, there was a foul on a wolves player 90 yards from goal which would have ended the game. And then the referee, something almost never seen, overrides the var check. It is always the case with city and its quite incredible.
Most perplexing of all is that he turned from the screen so quickly, before even seeing the clip from the side that shows the strongest argument for it being disallowed.
Now, how you explain this, when the same referee wasnt even sent to the monitor for a 100% wrong decision against fernandes, I dont know. Why there is a manchester referee taking that game, who is clearly not a united fan, i dont know either.
These moments in isolation can often be argued one way or the other, but the sheer volume of things that go for city is unreal. I cant think of many controversial var calls against them at all.
My own feeling is that I dont know how a player can be at least 2 yards offside, in the goalmouth and not be interfering. And if he isnt interfering, why is it a tactic city employ so frequently. Identical one last season v fulham. Its a tactic because they believe it helps.
How do we know that without silva there, Sa wont just charge the box. He's there to stop the keeper leaving his line.
I don't think so, but they'd probably argue it's a previous phase of play after the rationale.
He was definitely interfering with the goalkeeper and it knocked him off balance...
If that was a push, then the game is done.
He didn't override the VAR check. The offside was given on the pitch, VAR overturned it. The ref was sent to the monitor because that's what happens for subjective offsides.
Kavanagh didn't have to go to the monitor for the Fernandes incident because he was told he got the initial call correct.
Fair enough, but I don't understand still.
I don't see how what Silva did just before Stones heads the ball can't be relevant.
And case closed.
On a goalkeeper that should be a foul. The goalkeeper has set themselves and some cnut is backing into them and bumps them to knock them off balance.
It's the equivalent of tripping a player outfield.
If you think slightly backing into the keeper during the corner is a foul, fair enough. Then you have to whistle attacker foul on every corner in every game though.
If it is not a foul, it is not relevant as he is not offside for the corner and such the notion of 'interfering' is irrelevant.
The way they use it is such a joke. How hard is it to show the relevant angles? It seems like they pick one or two then call it a day. Release all the audio and learn from the NFL and rugby.
I know you're describing how it works, but Im saying that none of that makes sense. The entire process of var is deeply flawed by incompetent referees - some of whom show more and more bias every year. When you hear theres a controversy you can almost guess one of the few refs thats likely to be involved.
He's mostly of the hook though, that people will narrow it down to 'line of sight', and also ignore the foul on the wolves player a minute earlier, outside the city box. It would have been game over.
It makes no sense that he didnt watch all of the angles available, and it makes no sense that he overturned the on field decision, when Silva stands in front of Sa to stop him coming to claim the ball. Once that job is done, he can get out of the way, but he's already interfered.
Confirming that offside was given on the pitch.
Why is silva there and doing that, if it serves no purpose? If it serves a purpose, its interfering.
This screenshot means that sa would have to be 100% certain in that moment that the header isnt going to his right for silva not to be interfering. Its ridiculous.
So if a player pushes or punch someone it doesn't matter as long as it is away from the ball. Hmmm didn't city get a penalty like this against us last year because Diaz who was 10 meters away from the ball got pushed?
Thats not how offside works. He has a clear view of the ball and so can dive to the right if he needs to
It’s only correct if it’s correct for everyone. Keepers generally can’t be blocked like that, he was basically marking him. Very odd it wasn’t given as a foul.
Obviously not. If you commit a foul (which punching someone would definitely be) then you've commited a foul.
In this case they didn't think Silva fouled the goalkeeper, which is correct. The question is whether he was interfering with him from an offside position, which you can do without committing a foul.
so again, why is silva told to be there at all? It is quite clearly to prevent the keeper leaving his line, then 'get out of the way' after he's served his role. He is by definition and instruction, interfering with the goalkeeper, and because he's out of the way when a header is hammered at him from 5 yards away is a mental reason to allow a goal.
also, if that header went to his right and he dived that way, it would be disallowed, despite sa having a line of sight when the header itself occurs. its ridiculous.
Looked like the right call to me. No interference, although you could argue that Silva prevented Sa from running out and catching the ball first. But judging by the speed and the angle of the corner that would not have been very wise and I doubt that he would have gone for it.
Interfering is not a thing if you're not offside.
Think it is a goal but very much down to interpretation of what consitutues obstruction.
Its crazy because they showed the one angle on VAR yet on the tv we see firstly the keeper gets nudged and secondly a different angle that looked way worse than the one they shown
I believe that's only the third time ever in the PL that VAR has been overturned...
I believe that's only the third time ever in the PL that VAR has been overturned...
Eh that's exactly why its an argument.... Kavanagh decided he wasnt offside so your point stands. But he was offside and he was interfering. Youre just describing what makes the decision wrong as far as i can tell
VAR wasn't overturned. The onfield call was offside.
No he prevented him from being able to jump to save the ball with an intentional and focused physical challenge. I.e an intentional foul.
On a goalkeeper that should be called as a foul. There is no 'just be stronger' because it's targeted at their balance and prevention of mobility and ability to reach the ball.
He wasn't offside when he was interfering.
He cannot be offside when a corner is taken. When the ball is headed, at which point he becomes offside, he is already moving away and neither impeding the goalie nor his vision.
Didn't Evans get a goal chalked off for something similar last season? I think it was Burnley away
he's blocking the keeper when he's not offside. why is this complicated. he stands there, prevents Sa going for the ball, and then whether or not hes interfering is a judgement call. Its a wrong decision. Watch the side view, Sa is coming from his line, has to shove silva, then retreat.
The ref in Hull v Sunderland is having a nightmare
Legitimate goal in my book.
Maybe, just maybe if Sa doesn't push him away there ends up being less seperation between the 2 and Bernardo Silva can't quite duck out of the way and spin off to the side in time. Not blaming the keeper there at all for that, it's right he's trying to clear him out of the way and any goalie would but if he didn't things might've just turned out differently. Bernardo Silva could've just been more in between his line of sight and the ball and he ends up getting given offside.
Maybe, just maybe if Sa doesn't push him away there ends up being less seperation between the 2 and Bernardo Silva can't quite duck out of the way and spin off to the side in time. Not blaming the keeper there at all for that, it's right he's trying to clear him out of the way and any goalie would but if he didn't things might've just turned out differently. Bernardo Silva could've just been more in between his line of sight and the ball and he ends up getting given offside.
hes already impeded the keeper by this point. It's very very clear on the replay. If what he did is allowed, then great, lets see it every single game from us, and we will never ever see a goalkeeper claim a corner again.
Yes. Yes and yes. I wrote that earlier in matchday thread.
Yep.
Hojlund is much more obviously in the goalkeeper's line of sight though, tbf.
Absolutely, perfectly good call to give it.
Yep.
Hojlund is much more obviously in the goalkeeper's line of sight though, tbf.
Even from that angle you can see that the keeper here can clearly see the ball. Nobody is arguing that sa can't see the ball. He was blocked from coming for it though
Lets see how much of a media meltdown there is over this decision against Wolves.
Except that's the basis of the original on-pitch decision to award an offside. Offside was given because he was in the goalkeeper's line of vision, not because he was somehow blocking Sa's ability to come for the ball from the point Stones headed it.
Anything that happened before Stones headed it (unless an actual foul in its own right) is irrelevant, because you can't be offside from a corner. That's just the way the rules work.