Rival watch
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Well, they gave a penalty incorrectly and gave a goal as offside incorrectly on the pitch, so it is clear which team was given the benefit of doubt. All VAR has done is make the correct decision on two factual decisions, an offside and a player winning the ball. So yes, the on field officials did favour the team in red, again.
So on field officials are biased towards red but when the same officials are on var they suddenly become neutral?
Bias doesn't imply that every decision favours the team in red. A biased coin might come down heads 51% of the time. You need several hundred throws to be sure that the bias is there.
Im not saying there is bias, it’s others that say it’s happened and they’d probably say it’s happened several hundred times.
I post more about luck than anyone on here but I don't think it is lucky to get the correct decision...that's just normal.
wasn’t correct imo
he was definitely interfering with play…he was a foot away from the keeper….if I’m that keeper then I’ve got one eye and some of my mind on the closest opposition player to me
Its obviously a subjective matter as no clear lines have been defined but having done the eye ball test…he was definitely offside
He was very close to the keeper before the ball was headed but he can't be given offside at that point. When the ball was headed he had moved well out of the line of sight of the keeper and didn't do any of the things specified in the offside law
Wolves complaint is that they had a goal similar ruled offside because although the player wasn’t blocking the line of sight, he was close enough to the keeper to be interfering.
The issue again is consistency.
Personally I think it was the correct decision to allow the goal but I’m sure we will see another similar situation this season where the goal is ruled out.
See screenshot below. The Law says 'preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision'
In one case the offside player is directly in line just in front of the GK in the other he is more than a metre away from the GK and nowhere near the line of sight.
You must log in or register to see images
You must log in or register to see images
Gary O’Neil says they’re similar and one was given and one wasn’t.
I can see why he’s aggrieved.
One is the exact offence outlawed by the Laws and in the other the GK has a clear line of sight. So he is just wrong to say they are similar.
I think Silva was very clever, interferes with the keeper when he can't be offside and gets out of the way before header that would have made him offside if he didn't have the peace of mind to move. Good decision for me.
since Sa was deliberately barged just prior to the header i would argue he did interfere with the goalkeepers ability to prepare for the header .
In years gone by maybe, but Silvas interference was nothing to compared to some of the corners that Vicario has conceded from or the Ederson one in the City v Goons match.
And in our case we are constantly told the Vicario has to be stronger and I would say the same for Sa.
and i thought they were fouls as well and i notice that Arsenal have stopped doing it as they knew that after all the attention their "tactics" have had they would get pinged by the refs if they continued .
Agree with this - and I thought the clampdown on GK 'interference' was specifically to stop the actions of Silva yesterday?
That should be the talking point, not the potential offside, which as has been set out above, it isn't!!