Match Day Thread Burnley (H) Sunday 12/08 13:30

Not sure I follow. You are saying that had we been dominating Burnley, playing quick and dangerous football only for the manager to pull off three attacking players and go to three at the back, leading to us being completely overrun and scrambling to stay in the game that we wouldn't have been impressed?

I'm not sure who would disagree with you.

 

And the other thing is no team will really dominate for 90 mins. The opposition also have a say in matters.

 

Surely it would be very rare for any team not to have a smidgeon of a chance during any game. Looking at statistics it is surprising to see how many teams have less of the possession, sometimes at the ratio of 60-40 and yet still win the game............there is rarely a guaranteed winner although granted some teams chances are greater than others but it aint guaranteed as we well know.................

 

I would watch MOTD if we scored a late goal for a draw, but not if we conceded one for the same result. Timing is everything.

 

Cork was "quote" coming back from an offside position when the ball was played forward; but on-side when he received it.
QED: then became active, so offside is/was the correct call
Well played Lino!

 

Was he? Thought he'd held his position perfectly.

 

Offside

 

Either way I'm not sure Charlie should be standing there.

 

Yep, offside. I must have been two camera shots back from that one.
And just when did Cork get clinical anyway.......

 

Got to admit though i was in line with that live and i thought he was on so it was a good call.

 

Also, while he's definitely offside by a couple inches, we still got flat-out lucky on the call. That's close enough to have effectively been a guess on the part of the lino. If he was moving forward and not back on the play, I'd hazard a guess it goes the other way.

 

We should've had a penner at the end, it evened itself out and I reckon a draw was definately the fairest result.

 

The human eye doesn't see a continuous image...it sees a series of images and like a film the images are joined up to give a continuous narrative. That is how magicians do their tricks....your brain decides what is logical and presents it as fact. For example, you watch a ball being tossed in the air a few times and suddenly it vanishes in mid air when in fact it was never thrown the last time but remains in the hand.....but the viewer is sure it was thrown up. Linesmen are probably right more often than wrong based on experience, but cannot be 100% accurate as they are trying to watch several things at once.

 

That foul was one of the great examples of why football should adopt my idea for IFKs in the box. It was absolutely a foul, and it was absolutely in the box. But the ball was going out of play, and no one wants to award a game-changing penalty on what is effectively a dead play. Solution: stick 21 players in a small area, and play pinball!

 

Clearly not, Our Pen should have stood, He was factually offside, It's not even debatable.

 

Ok. Let’s close down the forum in that case.

Thanks for the defacto statement...

 

When I saw the replay on MotD I didn't think it was going out of play. It wasnt one of those incidents where somebody lunges in to get to the ball first and ends up kicking it a mile. Seemed to me Ings was still in control and would have been able to get to it and cross it. I'll have a look at it again when I get home.

 

I get the point of saying that penalties should only be awarded if there was a reasonable chance of a goal scoring chance (though in that case we'd never get one as the chances of us scoring are lower than for other teams ), but that introduces yet another level of judgement required from referees. Schad thinks the ball was effectively dead, whilst VocalMinority thinks Ings might have got it under control. No one will know unless it was played out to its conclusion....please don't repeat that to computer bods because I'm sure they could set up a programme to estimate probabilities.

 

But on this instant it's for all to see.

 

And we are on a forum and it is open to debate.

The fact of the proximity to the line, speed of incident and bodies in the way - I am not surprised it wasn't given.

I was directly in-line with the incident and it wasn't clear.

And guess what - I just debated with you.