completely agree. The idiots who’ve been bigging them up and demanding we play boys who aren’t ready should hang their heads in shame
Name names...you mean elland don't you. I'll be honest in that I thought Drameh could make the step up, maybe he still will but his attitude today when it came to putting in the hard yards absolutely stunk.
I wasn’t disappointed in the U23s today, sadly the only striker left is Greenwood so we have little choice there (despite me thinking he is poor). I was more disappointed with James, Harrison, Raphinha and Klich. They had plenty of the possession but as an attacking threat they were very poor today
To be honest we need to keep hold of our youngsters at the moment as we have no strength in depth as it is due to all our injuries. On the whole I don't think we disgraced ourselves today and at least put up a fight until the end. It was always going to go one way or the other at the end, either us getting an equaliser or them getting a break away second.
Morning all. I'm still dumbfounded by the decision for the goal. I looked up the rule (I don't know if it is up to date) “Interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate. A player can be considered playing the ball even without touching it if, in the opinion of the referee or assistant referee, that player is making an active play for the ball and is likely to touch it. If contact is likely, the offense (offside) can be called when the official makes that determination, even if there is no contact with the ball. An attacker in an offside position is not considered to be interfering with play (and, therefore, is not judged offside) if, in the opinion of the referee, another attacker starting from an onside position will clearly make first contact with the ball. In this situation, officials must refrain from calling an offside offense until they make this determination. I just cannot see how Bowen is not interfering with play. Is one of our referees able to give an explanation?
If you asked someone to write a description of what Bowen did then you would write the bolded bit. The decisions against us this season are infuriating.
This is from Nov 21 so is up to date: Interfering with an opponent However, there is this last scenario where you can be offside by interfering with your opponent. Here are some scenarios that are outlined in the Laws of the Game: Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision Challenging an opponent for the ball Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball One of the papers quotes Mark Halsey who says it shouldn't have stood.
Best I've found! From the West Ham website match report! Even they say he goes for the loose ball. "As is so often the case these days, however, the goal was not confirmed before a lengthy check by VAR Jarred Gillett for possible offside against Bowen. The No20 was beyond the final defender when Vlašić’s initial effort was blocked and he then went after the loose ball but, because Bowen did not ultimately touch it, the goal was allowed to stand."
Before it went to VAR my initial thought was that will never stand as Bowens leg made contact with our keepers head, foul. Did he make contact? Either way he was close enough and he definitely was the deciding factor on Meslier gathering the ball or fumbling
Looking at Dramahs booking I understand contact is irrelevant and Bowen should have been booked for intent diving in where Meslier head was.
have to say, I wasn’t following his every move, but didn’t notice a lack of effort or attitude . I see it how emu does. PL Strikers need pace or strength or exceptional control… preferably a combination. I’ve not really seen one of the three from him. He takes a great free kick… maybe he needs more time to develop, maybe he’s hit his ceiling. That’s the coaching teams job to establish.
******s who probably thought bellusci was on a par with baresi.......stick to twatter or FIFA on your playstation
They also stated raph was rubbish too on social media. Said to keep the u23s and sell Llorente and raph.
Whilst I don't agree with the decision, I can understand why VAR didn't over turn the decision to award the goal. Vlasic and Hjelde are tussling for the ball. As both players go down in the penalty area, Vlasic knocks the ball forward (at which time both Bowen and Antonio are in offside positions, however under the part of Blono's post which I have underlined, neither would be deemed to be interfering with play at that precise moment in time). The ball then comes off Hjeldes left knee, thus no one can be offside now, as the ball was last played by a defender. Meslier comes to collect, Bowen attempts to challenge, and Vlasic recovers slightly, so as to knock the ball away from Meslier. Thus an official has to decide whether Bowen was offside and interfering with play prior to Hjelde getting his touch, and unfortunately the "interfering with play" decision is a judgement call, there is no right or wrong answer. Vlasic then gets a second touch, which knocks the ball away from Meslier, Bowen is also coming into challenge. If we accept that the first part of the move has been deemed legal ( and yes I appreciate that a lot of you won't agree , but as I said above, that is a judgement call), then VAR has to consider whether Bowen is now offside and interfering with play. So lets get the easy decision out of the way. By moving towards the ball and Meslier, in my opinion Bowen is interfering with play, but until Vlasic makes a second touch, he won't be deemed to be offside because of Hjelde's touch. The angle we get from tv isn't the best, some may argue that he is level with the ball, but to me his left foot looks like it would be in front of the ball. However we now come back to the interpretation of interfering with play. If Vlasic hadn't played the ball a second time, Bowen would have probably touched it. Vlasic's touch, took the ball away from Bowen's foot. If Bowen is deemed to be onside prior to the second touch from Vlasic, then he has every right to challenge for the ball that Meslier is about to collect. Under the offside law when I was a ref, Bowen would have been flagged as being offside as soon as Vsalic made his first pass, it wouldn't matter if a defender touched the ball after the pass was made, it wouldn't matter if Bowen has been on the far touchline, totally away from the action, he would be offside, and a freekick given. However they brought in the "interfering with play" amendment and this makes a surprisingly number of offside calls subjective. If I had been the ref in the game yesterday, I would have given offside. Having then watched the tv replays, I would now probably be on some West Ham Forum, typing the exactly same message as I am typing here, but wording it so that it justifies the decision I made to disallow the goal. Obviously with my Leeds fan hat on instead of my ref hat, I would immediately say that Bowen was interfering with play when Vlasic made his first touch. In the same situation with two teams that I have no interest in, give me the same decision 100 times, and I would probably give a goal 50 times and disallow it 50 times, because the laws of the game allow me to make that interpretation. The big problem with the offside law, and many others are they are still open for interpretation. We as football fans want definitive rules. If a certain decision is given one week, then we expect the same decision for the same incident to be given next time, and thus when it isn't sports media and football forums are up in outrage. VAR was meant to help with those moments, however a number of the decisions are still based upon interpretation. The problem with specific rules is that clubs and players will always find a way to make those work in their favour. Conor Cody I am looking at you and the "Head Injury "rule there. If I was the ref in a game and VAR asked me to look at a decision, I am immediately thinking hmm what have I missed. I'd love to find a way to fix VAR. A time limit on decisions doesn't solve the problem. Having a panel of 3 separate VAR refs looking at incidents, and only over ruling if all 3's opinion differs from the onfield ref. Its still comes down to opinion, and also more cumbersome to manage
Actually aski, I had similar thoughts about it coming off hjelde. However, if it’s a deflection it’s treated as a save. Any deflection from a shot, the position of the players at the time of the shot is what matters. As soon as Bowen attempts to play the ball or impedes/distracts the keeper, whatever, he is gaining an advantage and offside This is pasted direct from FA 2021-22 Offside It is not an offence to be in an offside position. 1. Offside position A player is in an offside position if: • any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and • any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit. A player is not in an offside position if level with the: • second-last opponent or • last two opponents 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: 2. Offside offence • 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 *The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used • 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 or opponent to play the ball • gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent • been deliberately saved by any opponent A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area). In situations where: • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12 • a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence • an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball,
Only edited the quote because it was a long post and I agree with you Milky, other than the way they define a "save". It means it is open to interpretation. If an official decides that the ball is not going into or close to the goal, is a block then classed as a "save" or not. It's something I have asked previous to friends who either still ref or have only recently stopped, and I get different answers. When I asked what does "close to goal" mean, some of my friends say they only consider this if the ball is within the 6 yard box, others have different interpretations It use to be defined that a player wouldn't be offside if the defending team deliberately played the ball, however that became open for debate, so they changed it and made the definition of what they consider to be a "save". As I said I would have not allowed the goal, I thought Bowen was offside. However Blono asked how the decision could be interpreted as it was, and I offered a scenario. I know Keith Hackett didnt think it should be allowed, I don't know if Dermot Gallagher did his ref watch show today. I know Peter Wright usually has an article in the Daily Mail looking at ref decisions over the weekend, and 90% of the time I disagree with him. I've seen both Gallagher and Wright analyse the same incident and give different decisions, and thus if two ex Premier League Referees, looking at an incident in the cold light of day without any pressure, can interpret a decision differently, then we , as fans will always be in a position whereby we will not understand the actual officials decision at the time. I've always believed that refs should explain their decisions after the game. However when this was tried, the media being the media wanted to do this straight after the game, when tensions were still high and looked to highlight what they considered the ref had missed instead of listening to their reasoning, and thus the PGMOL have adopted the defensive approach of no explanations, which I don't think is good for the game. Two solutions - return to the old offside rule, if you are offside, then you are offside, even if you are collapsed in a heap by your opponents corner flag. This would have worked in our favour yesterday Bring back the daylight rule. An attacker is only offside if there is daylight between him and the last defender when the ball is last played by the attacking team. This would have worked in West Ham's favour yesterday.
I wasn’t sure on when Block =save either aski. Previous FA rules have diagrams that basically show it to be any deflection from a shot, wherever it’s taken but not sure whether that’s still the case. however the save thing might be a red herring… as this part seems to cover deflection: • gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent
