VAR, Refs and Linesmen | General Discussion

MikeKing said:
Thanks man, I appreciate that from a City fan. I think we did too. The rules should be more clear, and it shouldn't be this much of a drama of such a simple decision, that much is clear. It should be clarified and not brushed over, these situations matter.
Click to expand...

Exactly the thing is even if the ref's came out and said. "We didn't think Akanji would get the ball whether Rashford was there or not, and the reason Rashford wasn't a factor in Ederson's ability to play the ball is..." All this nonsense would go away, people would still say right or wrong but we'd have clarity. Not just on this decision of course but there have been some big ones this season, this one just happened in a title 6 pointer.

I'm hoping my post don't look like sour grapes simply because I'm arguing it was offside. I mean United won the xg by the same amount they won the game and theres nothing to suggest you guys wouldn't have scored anyway, we had a good half an hour but fell apart after as yet again we created the grand sum of feck all over 90 minutes and I don't want City using the decision as an excuse for losing.

To me, I don't get why some of your and alot of our fans can't see both things can be true. United were the better side and got a deserved 3 points and Rashford was offside.
 
Firstly winning xG means absolutely zero - it's not a real thing, just a predictionat an outcome, an educated one maybe but still a prediction
n
Secondly, according to the rules that the game was played under Rashford's wasn't offside, the rule maybe stupid but it doesn't change the facts
 
MikeKing said:
Thanks man, I appreciate that from a City fan. I think we did too. The rules should be more clear, and it shouldn't be this much of a drama of such a simple decision, that much is clear. It should be clarified and not brushed over, these situations matter.
Click to expand...
But it is clear, that’s the problem? It literally says either block a player off or touch the ball makes him offside. Neither happened.
If anything the rules should be less clear?
 
cyberman said:
But it is clear, that’s the problem? It literally says either block a player off or touch the ball makes him offside. Neither happened.
If anything the rules should be less clear?
Click to expand...

Where does it say that?
 
padr81 said:
Actually the whole thing was Cancelo's fault for pulling a Cancelo and dragging everyone outta position, Ake over to LB, so Akanji had to fill for Ake who was filling for Cancelo and but thankfully Dias and Stones will be fit soon.


Akanji's fault alright, cause Ederson isn't totally clearing that without Rashford threatening to shoot. If only Akanji could stop making the crucial mistake of not being able to phase through players.
Click to expand...

It changes everything! :lol:

i like the reply showing the super human di Maria scoring in the world cup final.

Using still pictures ffs !
 
Oly Francis said:
Where does it say that?
Click to expand...
In the rules

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
“or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent”


He doesn’t do any of those.
 
cyberman said:
In the rules

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
“or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent”


He doesn’t do any of those.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say what you pretended it said and some of the point here are wildly up for interpretation.
 
BlueMoonOutcast said:
What does deserved have to do with it? We were winning when that nonsense decision went against us.
Click to expand...

Nothing with the decision which is my point but I think blaming it on the decision is papering over the cracks of how poor we've been. When we had United on the ropes after the goal we didn't create. Regardless of the decision, we need to put teams to bed, we've let United, Everton, Brentford off the hook in recent weeks by not scoring a second of even creating enough to put these teams away.
 
cyberman said:
But it is clear, that’s the problem? It literally says either block a player off or touch the ball makes him offside. Neither happened.
If anything the rules should be less clear?
Click to expand...
Less clear? What does that mean:lol: Many offsides are called every week without nobody touching or interfering with play. It's weird is all.
BlueMoonOutcast said:
What does deserved have to do with it? We were winning when that nonsense decision went against us.
Click to expand...
No you weren't. You were clearly floundering. United created 6 clear chances, you had one. United would have found away through that City defence even if Rashford stopped during that run and let Bruno smash it with no offside debate. It's just an excuse for you.
 
MikeKing said:
Less clear? What does that mean:lol:

No you weren't. You were clearly floundering. United created 6 clear chances, you had one. United would have found away through that City defence even if Rashford stopped during that run and let Bruno smash it with no offside debate. It's just an excuse for you.
Click to expand...
Less clear as in to cover more situations, give referees some common sense decisions.
It’s only debated by us, by all accounts everybody associated with referees etc say the decision was spot on and not in doubt.

If it were in doubt you’d see a lot more talking heads popping their heads up over it
 
cyberman said:
Less clear as in to cover more situations, give referees some common sense decisions.
It’s only debated by us, by all accounts everybody associated with referees etc say the decision was spot on and not in doubt.

If it were in doubt you’d see a lot more talking heads popping their heads up over it
Click to expand...
I just haven't seen any situation quite like it, given. These are usually not offside, because the player in offside position doesn't follow the play right down to the last touch, but when they are in such close proximity and moving towards the ball, even without touching it, it's usually called offside immediately. But it depends. There is no reason why it should depend on the situation, so it needs to be more clear.

I actually think they should cut out the linesman all together and just use automatic AI analysis with VAR for these decisions. Just put the rule in and let the computer decide what happened. Would put the ambiguity right out of it and make for consistent decisions.
 
It was obviously interfering in play and offside. The defenders and keeper didn't know who would play the ball.

Hackett is right, when they changed the offside law they didn't clarify properly. The Salah goal v Wolves also off and under the old system flag goes up no problem.

Hopefully Webb will just admit it and make sure it doesn't happen again. Like the mistake against Arsenal at OT, could take a while...

Football is such a joke, barely a match day goes by without a ridiculous decision.
 
cyberman said:
In the rules

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
“or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent”


He doesn’t do any of those.
Click to expand...
As soon as Rashford runs for the ball he is "challenging an opponent for the ball". What am I missing?
 
PolkaPig said:
As soon as Rashford runs for the ball he is "challenging an opponent for the ball". What am I missing?
Click to expand...
I also wonder at what point the people who don't think it's offside would consider Rashford to be offside?

Since running towards the ball and being 10cm from it isn't enough, can he start swinging his foot to shoot the ball? Does he become active when he's completed his backlift? Is that a reasonable point for the opponents to assume that they might need to consider his actions? Or is it once the foot goes forward towards the ball? Is he offside if he swings at the ball and Bruno pops in just ahead of him to shoot? What if he kicks Bruno's foot onto the ball for a goal? Or is it first when he actually shoots the ball that it's reasonable for the defenders to assume that "shit lads, he might be taking a shot here!"

I mean, if purposefully running towards the ball and finding yourself 10cm away from it before leaving it means you're not offside, then surely this can be used as a tactical tool? I've always wondered why no team has started abusing the fake offside, since it often makes defenders hesitate before spotting the runner from deep, but if the offside guy can run all the way to the ball and then just leave it then it would become ridiculously OP.
 
Anustart89 said:
I also wonder at what point the people who don't think it's offside would consider Rashford to be offside?

Since running towards the ball and being 10cm from it isn't enough, can he start swinging his foot to shoot the ball? Does he become active when he's completed his backlift? Is that a reasonable point for the opponents to assume that they might need to consider his actions? Or is it once the foot goes forward towards the ball? Is he offside if he swings at the ball and Bruno pops in just ahead of him to shoot? What if he kicks Bruno's foot onto the ball for a goal? Or is it first when he actually shoots the ball that it's reasonable for the defenders to assume that "shit lads, he might be taking a shot here!"

I mean, if purposefully running towards the ball and finding yourself 10cm away from it before leaving it means you're not offside, then surely this can be used as a tactical tool? I've always wondered why no team has started abusing the fake offside, since it often makes defenders hesitate before spotting the runner from deep, but if the offside guy can run all the way to the ball and then just leave it then it would become ridiculously OP.
Click to expand...
He didn't do any of those things. And he didn't challenge anyone for the ball, because no one was near enough to intercept the ball, based on its trajectory.
 
Anustart89 said:
I also wonder at what point the people who don't think it's offside would consider Rashford to be offside?

Since running towards the ball and being 10cm from it isn't enough, can he start swinging his foot to shoot the ball? Does he become active when he's completed his backlift? Is that a reasonable point for the opponents to assume that they might need to consider his actions? Or is it once the foot goes forward towards the ball? Is he offside if he swings at the ball and Bruno pops in just ahead of him to shoot? What if he kicks Bruno's foot onto the ball for a goal? Or is it first when he actually shoots the ball that it's reasonable for the defenders to assume that "shit lads, he might be taking a shot here!"

I mean, if purposefully running towards the ball and finding yourself 10cm away from it before leaving it means you're not offside, then surely this can be used as a tactical tool? I've always wondered why no team has started abusing the fake offside, since it often makes defenders hesitate before spotting the runner from deep, but if the offside guy can run all the way to the ball and then just leave it then it would become ridiculously OP.
Click to expand...

The thing is, they could abuse it. The rules aren’t reasonable or even fit for purpose. But in accordance with those rules, Rashford wasn’t offside. This is one of those situations where the insane way they’ve twisted rules in recent years actually benefits us. Might as well enjoy it until we get fecked over by some other refereeing atrocity.
 
mu4c_20le said:
He didn't do any of those things. And he didn't challenge anyone for the ball, because no one was near enough to intercept the ball, based on its trajectory.
Click to expand...
Doesn't running towards the ball and ending up ten centimetres from it constitute an obvious action that makes Ederson think he's going to take a shot?

I'm genuinely wondering at what point you would consider him active in this particular situation? Would you consider him active if he swung at the ball? Or would you not consider him active until he touches the ball? Could he have faked a shot and put Ederson on his arse before going "psych! Here's Bruno!"?

It's a bit unfair to Ederson to say to him "see that guy who's right next to the ball ten yards away from you? Yeah, ignore him, he ain't shooting it. Focus on the other guy popping up from behind him, he's the shooter!"
 
Anustart89 said:
Doesn't running towards the ball and ending up ten centimetres from it constitute an obvious action that makes Ederson think he's going to take a shot?

I'm genuinely wondering at what point you would consider him active in this particular situation? Would you consider him active if he swung at the ball? Or would you not consider him active until he touches the ball? Could he have faked a shot and put Ederson on his arse before going "psych! Here's Bruno!"?

It's a bit unfair to Ederson to say to him "see that guy who's right next to the ball ten yards away from you? Yeah, ignore him, he ain't shooting it. Focus on the other guy popping up from behind him, he's the shooter!"
Click to expand...
Happens all the time when defenders play balls because they don’t know if the player behind is offside and that results in the offside player scoring.
This is no different
 
Anustart89 said:
Doesn't running towards the ball and ending up ten centimetres from it constitute an obvious action that makes Ederson think he's going to take a shot?

I'm genuinely wondering at what point you would consider him active in this particular situation? Would you consider him active if he swung at the ball? Or would you not consider him active until he touches the ball? Could he have faked a shot and put Ederson on his arse before going "psych! Here's Bruno!"?

It's a bit unfair to Ederson to say to him "see that guy who's right next to the ball ten yards away from you? Yeah, ignore him, he ain't shooting it. Focus on the other guy popping up from behind him, he's the shooter!"
Click to expand...
If he did anything else besides jogging alongside the ball, he would've been in play
 
mu4c_20le said:
If he did anything else besides jogging alongside the ball, he would've been in play
Click to expand...
So you agree then that he's in play considering that he's running at full speed towards it initially and slows down as he gets to the ball, then pulls out last second before Bruno shoots. He's not just casually jogging alongside the ball for the entire action.
 
Anustart89 said:
So you agree then that he's in play considering that he's running at full speed towards it initially and slows down as he gets to the ball, then pulls out last second before Bruno shoots. He's not just casually jogging alongside the ball for the entire action.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter if he's in play though. That's not the rule
 
How in the world was the Newcastle defender pulling back Pereira not given as a penalty and sending off by VAR?? That’s a terrible decision.
 
arnie_ni said:
It doesn't matter if he's in play though. That's not the rule
Click to expand...
It does matter though because at some point he becomes involved in "active play". Considering that Rashford is chasing the ball down (and not jogging alongside it) Ederson has to consider the possibility that a shot is coming.

Could Rashford run to the ball, fake a shot to send Ederson on his arse, and then leave it for Bruno to tap it in?

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
Click to expand...
His dashing run towards the ball is in an effort to play the ball. Just because he pulls out at the last second doesn't mean that Ederson can just assume that he was never going to shoot so he could just ignore Rashford's presence and angle. Hi posts that feel sexual thread[/quote]
 
Anustart89 said:
It does matter though because at some point he becomes involved in "active play". Considering that Rashford is chasing the ball down (and not jogging alongside it) Ederson has to consider the possibility that a shot is coming.

Could Rashford run to the ball, fake a shot to send Ederson on his arse, and then leave it for Bruno to tap it in?
Click to expand...
By the rules (I haven't read them since yesterday) effectively yes he could
 
arnie_ni said:
By the rules (I haven't read them since yesterday) effectively yes he could
Click to expand...
See my edit above with the rule. I mean, it's obviously a matter of interpretation but the way he runs towards the ball and his proximity to it means that Ederson has to consider at least the possibility that the shot is coming from Rashford and not Bruno, therefore splitting his focus and impacting him, just as much as a player being in his line of sight would.
 
Anustart89 said:
It does matter though because at some point he becomes involved in "active play". Considering that Rashford is chasing the ball down (and not jogging alongside it) Ederson has to consider the possibility that a shot is coming.

Could Rashford run to the ball, fake a shot to send Ederson on his arse, and then leave it for Bruno to tap it in?


His dashing run towards the ball is in an effort to play the ball. Just because he pulls out at the last second doesn't mean that Ederson can just assume that he was never going to shoot so he could just ignore Rashford's presence and angle. Hi posts that feel sexual thread
Click to expand...

He didn't attempt to play it though. He ran towards it. They must not be considered the same.
 
arnie_ni said:
He didn't attempt to play it though. He ran towards it. They must not be considered the same.
Click to expand...
Surely the first step in attempting to play the ball is actually running (full pelt, initially) towards it? And even more so when you end up so close to the ball that you have to take evasive action in the end to not end up touching it.

But just to be clear, you're saying that there needs to be a clear kicking motion for it to be an attempt at playing it, and not just decisive movement towards the ball? If so, let's just agree to disagree and leave it there.
 
Anustart89 said:
Surely the first step in attempting to play the ball is actually running (full pelt, initially) towards it? And even more so when you end up so close to the ball that you have to take evasive action in the end to not end up touching it.

But just to be clear, you're saying that there needs to be a clear kicking motion for it to be an attempt at playing it, and not just decisive movement towards the ball? If so, let's just agree to disagree and leave it there.
Click to expand...
I think that's the way the referees obviously interpret it yes because if they didn't both rashford and salah last week would be offside. They obviously don't consider a movement towards the ball interfering at all.

But if you read my posts on it I think its mad that it's not a rule that a player in an offside position is judged offside as soon as they make a motion towards the ball.
 
arnie_ni said:
I think that's the way the referees obviously interpret it yes because if they didn't both rashford and salah last week would be offside. They obviously don't consider a movement towards the ball interfering at all.

But if you read my posts on it I think its mad that it's not a rule that a player in an offside position is judged offside as soon as they make a motion towards the ball.
Click to expand...
I think the Salah one is insane for a different reason, because the only reason that a defender makes a panicked clearance that ends up with the attacker is because of the offside attacker standing there.

Both these goals are clearly against what refereeing organisations like to refer to as what "football expects to happen", so you'd expect some tweaks to the rules in the wake of these decisions.



What's the difference here? Here we have someone truly "jogging alongside the ball" like @mu4c_20le put it, and if the law was as clear as some like to put it then surely the linesman here wouldn't have botched such an easy decision?
 
Surprise, surprise! Those two Abu tw*ts Alan Shearer and Danny Murphy, on MOTD2, stating that the offside laws need to be changed to include 'common sense'. So that a referee can make whatever decision he wants? :lol::lol::lol:
 
Anustart89 said:
I think the Salah one is insane for a different reason, because the only reason that a defender makes a panicked clearance that ends up with the attacker is because of the offside attacker standing there.

Both these goals are clearly against what refereeing organisations like to refer to as what "football expects to happen", so you'd expect some tweaks to the rules in the wake of these decisions.
Click to expand...
They've tried to change the salah rule before, ironically after City benefitted from it against villa a couple of years ago.

They just need to make it pure simple, a player that is offside can't get involved in any way shape or form until another player in their team who is onside touches it.

That cuts out the salah type goals because it wasn't someone else in his team and it cuts out rashfords because once he runs towards the ball he should be flagged.

But it would allow for rashford to run straight towards goal and bruno to pass it back to him and him to score.

That's the type of rule I would implement, but it's not the rule and I think the goal is fair.
 
Wumminator said:
I have yet to see anyone explain how if Rashford is offside (influencing players positions, changing the defensive set up) then Walker isn’t offside in the build up for the first goal (our left back has to leave De Bruyne free to track Walker)
Click to expand...
I take your point, however I just went and checked the replay for that and Walker is actually onside when Mahrez plays the ball into De Bruyne.
 
Fitchett said:
Surprise, surprise! Those two Abu tw*ts Alan Shearer and Danny Murphy, on MOTD2, stating that the offside laws need to be changed to include 'common sense'. So that a referee can make whatever decision he wants? :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...

Funniest was yesterday Micah Richards saying playing high line is an art and as a defender you are just trying to catch the guy offside . No one bothered to tell him that the rule changed ages ago and so just because you played the high line well doesn't mean that you stop playing
 
Fitchett said:
Surprise, surprise! Those two Abu tw*ts Alan Shearer and Danny Murphy, on MOTD2, stating that the offside laws need to be changed to include 'common sense'. So that a referee can make whatever decision he wants? :lol::lol::lol:
Click to expand...
Murphy is a little rat, nice to see him so bitter though
 
You must log in or register to reply here.