It was suggested to me, that the reason Kane was not offside is because it took a deflection off a German player?
VAR
- Thread starter alwaysright
- 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
-
It was suggested to me, that the reason Kane was not offside is because it took a deflection off a German player?
brb - that's a theory that I have heard - although it wasn't clarified by TV coverage.
.....now - I am going to present you with a chance to call me ignorant ! ---- but I will offer mitigation before I start... As you already know, the offisde rule has been subject to so many changes - and different interpretations over the last decade or so -- that I am beginning to struggle to keep up with the latest definition of offside..... I genuinely thought that an accidental deflection (of the ball ), by a defender, meant that the opposing forward (in an 'advanced' position ), was still offside.... that only an intentional deviation of the ball - by the defender, meant that the forward player could claim that he ( Kane ) was not offside.
I am unaware of even the slightest (( accidental )), deflection of the ball - as it was played to Kane - and the TV coverage did viewers no favours.... And if I am right ( in my submission in the previous paragraph )) then Kane had to be offside........ and was the recipient of good fortune - for being in the wrong place at the right time (( just like Banzema in the CL final )).............. and even if I am mistaken - I still maintain that the complexities of what is offside - and what part of one's body is deemed permissible for engaging with the ball (( and let's not forget the ever-so-grey area of when a player is / isn't interfering with play )) -- it's little wonder that fans get confused and frustrated -- not just because we don't seem to know what is the latest rule - but - because neither the officials or VAR seem to know the rules - because they're hardly being administered in a fair and consistent manner.
Last edited:
I'm not sure if I have the energy to further argue the point regarding 'accidental ' deflection ----- so - shall we move on to a new red criteria - about which, I had not heard ---- for the offence of 'Just standing there!'
I suppose that people will tell me that VAR was not used for the game last night... Why not ? .. I thought that the fixture was meant to be a serious international fixture - surely that should meant that VAR would be used ? The red card for Stones was utterly ridiculous..
Also I believe you cannot contest a second yellow card but you can a red. We shall see if Stones misses the next game as was never a red card
I didn't think they'd get it wrong in cricket !
Yesterday, I watched some of the Test match v India...
Towards the end of England's batting, Potts was given OUT, caught by Sheyras - but - not before VAR and the 3rd umpire cocked it up..
The onfield umpire gave a 'soft' signal of out - AFTER he called for VAR and adjudication by the TV umpire..... Which means that the onfield umpire wasn't certain if the ball had 'carried' to the fielder--- SO - how can he give any judgement ???
The TV replay (( after about 100 plays - from several angles )) -- clearly showed that the ball bounced into the fielder's hand...It had to be 'not out!'
At very least, there might have been a tiny doubt if a fingernail stopped the ball from FULLY connecting with the grass a moment before the fielder made a big deal of the 'catch.' (( I'm still convinced that the ball 'grounded' before the fielder collected it. ))
After numerous reruns of the incident, the very least that should have happened was that the batsman should have been given the benefit of the doubt - as it might have been inconclusive to judge against the batsman.......BUT - NO - the idiot in the TV studio gave Potts as 'out '!
The really stupid thing about the incident was that if the onfield umpire had given a soft signal of 'not out', the TV umpire would also have given it as not out !!!!.......... Apparently the TV umpire is compelled to agree with the onfield umpire -- who, if you remember, couldn't be sure of what happened !!
The decision and the process in its' reach, was more of a farce than in football..... The England batsman wasn't the only person shaking his head in disbelief as he left the pitch.
Yesterday, I watched some of the Test match v India...
Towards the end of England's batting, Potts was given OUT, caught by Sheyras - but - not before VAR and the 3rd umpire cocked it up..
The onfield umpire gave a 'soft' signal of out - AFTER he called for VAR and adjudication by the TV umpire..... Which means that the onfield umpire wasn't certain if the ball had 'carried' to the fielder--- SO - how can he give any judgement ???
The TV replay (( after about 100 plays - from several angles )) -- clearly showed that the ball bounced into the fielder's hand...It had to be 'not out!'
At very least, there might have been a tiny doubt if a fingernail stopped the ball from FULLY connecting with the grass a moment before the fielder made a big deal of the 'catch.' (( I'm still convinced that the ball 'grounded' before the fielder collected it. ))
After numerous reruns of the incident, the very least that should have happened was that the batsman should have been given the benefit of the doubt - as it might have been inconclusive to judge against the batsman.......BUT - NO - the idiot in the TV studio gave Potts as 'out '!
The really stupid thing about the incident was that if the onfield umpire had given a soft signal of 'not out', the TV umpire would also have given it as not out !!!!.......... Apparently the TV umpire is compelled to agree with the onfield umpire -- who, if you remember, couldn't be sure of what happened !!
The decision and the process in its' reach, was more of a farce than in football..... The England batsman wasn't the only person shaking his head in disbelief as he left the pitch.
It hasn't taken long - for VAR to make an idiot of itself ! - actually it wasn't stupid - it was CHEATING
It has been agreed by everyone else in the World - except the morons in the VAR office, that Manchester United's Martinez should have conceded a penalty - when he shoved the Brighton player in the back, and caused him to go sprawling in the box - yet - VAR saw nothing wrong !!!! (( I bet if the scenario was in the Brighton penalty area, we'd be seeing yet ANOTHER penalty awarded to Manchester United. ))
It has been agreed by everyone else in the World - except the morons in the VAR office, that Manchester United's Martinez should have conceded a penalty - when he shoved the Brighton player in the back, and caused him to go sprawling in the box - yet - VAR saw nothing wrong !!!! (( I bet if the scenario was in the Brighton penalty area, we'd be seeing yet ANOTHER penalty awarded to Manchester United. ))
Wow. VAR does it again. Why the hell was Kane goal disallowed in Europa cup.
You forget how VAR works mate, they have to look at the badge, Fulham and Everton therefore don't get VAR decisions.
I think the elastic band has broken !
What a farce at the Spain v Japan game ! It was like pantomime season come early... 'The referee gives a goal - then he doesn't (( all the time not really having a clue. )) Then VAR decides to interfere - and the situation goes from bad to worse....
We are expected to believe that an overhead angle of the ball, above the byline, told VAR that a millimetre of the 'out-of-shape' ball was 'overhanging' the airspace above the byline..... ( are you keeping up, brb ? ) - and therefore, the ball was 'in' play - what a load of cr*p!
Even if this was the best scenario available - and, I will stretch my imagination (( further than hoping for a Gills goal this weekend ) - even I can think of a much easier solution - that would eliminate ALL doubt if the ball was in / out /and not leaving my brain shaken all about !.....
....If we already have goal line technology (( for in between the posts )) -- why the bloody Hell cannot the same technology be extended all around the perimeter of the playing surface. A simple 'chip' inside the ball activates a sensor when it (the ball), goes off the limits !!!! If we can put a man on the moon, surely this resolution isn't stuck up the arse of Fifa's pantomime donkey ?
What a farce at the Spain v Japan game ! It was like pantomime season come early... 'The referee gives a goal - then he doesn't (( all the time not really having a clue. )) Then VAR decides to interfere - and the situation goes from bad to worse....
We are expected to believe that an overhead angle of the ball, above the byline, told VAR that a millimetre of the 'out-of-shape' ball was 'overhanging' the airspace above the byline..... ( are you keeping up, brb ? ) - and therefore, the ball was 'in' play - what a load of cr*p!
Even if this was the best scenario available - and, I will stretch my imagination (( further than hoping for a Gills goal this weekend ) - even I can think of a much easier solution - that would eliminate ALL doubt if the ball was in / out /and not leaving my brain shaken all about !.....
....If we already have goal line technology (( for in between the posts )) -- why the bloody Hell cannot the same technology be extended all around the perimeter of the playing surface. A simple 'chip' inside the ball activates a sensor when it (the ball), goes off the limits !!!! If we can put a man on the moon, surely this resolution isn't stuck up the arse of Fifa's pantomime donkey ?
The whole of the ball has to be over the line, I'll repeat this for you mate, the WHOLE of the ball has to be over the line....they think it's all over, it is now!
As you can probably tell mate, I'm crying for the Germans....no actually that's a lie, but you already know that.
oh - the whole of the ball - well I never knew that (( I too tell lies ! )) -----THAT wasn't my point ! - I was talking about chips in balls (( you bloody well knew that ))..... anyway, in my defence I haven't had much practise lately, of seeing even one millimetre of the ball anywhere near the goal line at Priestfield.
It's never a foul - so - NO yellow card !
I'm watching the France v Poland game - where both teams have suffered incorrectly awarded yellow cards !
If, we're going to have VAR interfere when the ball goes out ( or not ), at the byline - why can't VAR have some input when a yellow card is given ( incorrectly ), when a player is judged to have committed a foul.... when he clearly ' got the ball.'...... I accept that, in 'real' time, the speed of play , might mean the referee didn't see the interception - and sees the 'fouled' player go sprawling - hence the yellow card - BUT - replays for these incidents should not need to take more than moments - to tell the referee that he got it wrong - and a yellow card should not be given.
I'm watching the France v Poland game - where both teams have suffered incorrectly awarded yellow cards !
If, we're going to have VAR interfere when the ball goes out ( or not ), at the byline - why can't VAR have some input when a yellow card is given ( incorrectly ), when a player is judged to have committed a foul.... when he clearly ' got the ball.'...... I accept that, in 'real' time, the speed of play , might mean the referee didn't see the interception - and sees the 'fouled' player go sprawling - hence the yellow card - BUT - replays for these incidents should not need to take more than moments - to tell the referee that he got it wrong - and a yellow card should not be given.
Especially in world cup when players could miss important games due to getting 2 yellow cards even though might not of deserved any. Still don't understand how you can appeal a red card but not a yellow
If you are on the pitch...... you are 'interfering' with play (( unless you are a Gills player! ))
I see that VAR is in trouble - again!..Mo Salah's goal was 'technically' onside - but Toti's wasn't..... and VAR wasn't wrong in either case - but still made itself look stupid - or at least, the offside 'rule made VAR look daft!
I simply cannot accept the nonsense relating to 'accidental' contact by a defender - whereby the ball then 'diverts' into the path of a player (Salah), who is STILL deemed to be offside - BUT - if the defender 'deliberately' plays the ball, Salah ISN'T offside !!!!.................. I'm sorry - but - EVERY player, regardless of their position on the pitch is (in my opinion), having some influence on the action.. EVERY defender is in a defensive position - and deliberately able to prevent the passage of the ball........ and if none of my reasoning exists, then the player isn't giving 100% commitment.
It can be frustrating when we see lines being drawn across our screens when VAR is used - but - I have to accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere ! --- Why make offside decisions more difficult - by using 'phases' of play.... If a player receives the ball - that is played forward, he is offside at the moment the ball is struck in his direction....However, if the ball is 'diverted / intercepted by a defender - then the forward isn't offside - even if the contact is considered to be unintentional ! The VERY position of the defender is a clear statement of INTENT - with regards to wishing (intending) to prevent the passage of the ball towards his own goal!......
....I think I need a lie down after that....... before I get started on handball !
I see that VAR is in trouble - again!..Mo Salah's goal was 'technically' onside - but Toti's wasn't..... and VAR wasn't wrong in either case - but still made itself look stupid - or at least, the offside 'rule made VAR look daft!
I simply cannot accept the nonsense relating to 'accidental' contact by a defender - whereby the ball then 'diverts' into the path of a player (Salah), who is STILL deemed to be offside - BUT - if the defender 'deliberately' plays the ball, Salah ISN'T offside !!!!.................. I'm sorry - but - EVERY player, regardless of their position on the pitch is (in my opinion), having some influence on the action.. EVERY defender is in a defensive position - and deliberately able to prevent the passage of the ball........ and if none of my reasoning exists, then the player isn't giving 100% commitment.
It can be frustrating when we see lines being drawn across our screens when VAR is used - but - I have to accept that a line has to be drawn somewhere ! --- Why make offside decisions more difficult - by using 'phases' of play.... If a player receives the ball - that is played forward, he is offside at the moment the ball is struck in his direction....However, if the ball is 'diverted / intercepted by a defender - then the forward isn't offside - even if the contact is considered to be unintentional ! The VERY position of the defender is a clear statement of INTENT - with regards to wishing (intending) to prevent the passage of the ball towards his own goal!......
....I think I need a lie down after that....... before I get started on handball !
Last edited:
Can anyone explain how Man UTD goal stood against Man City. The ball missed Rashford by inches and he attempted to touch it before going to Fenedes to score
Because it's Man Ure and VAR is not allowed to go against them. It's rule number one in the VAR rule book.