Football thread 2022/23

[bradigor]

1 hour ago, Fry Crayola said:

Just seen the highlights now - how in the blue fuck was Salah's not offside? What idiot is writing these rules these days?

 

Because offside is an outdated rule that needs scrapping. Designed to stop goalhanging and now punishing better reaction speeds. 

 

As mentioned we had the same a few years back with Kane getting a penalty out of it. 

 

I complained at the time as I didn't know the rules has been adjusted. Now it is just pathetic. Wolves should be through with a legitimate 3-2 win. 

[spork]

Liverpool paying off the refs. Surprise surprise!

[bradigor]

8 minutes ago, spork said:

Liverpool paying off the refs. Surprise surprise!

 

You can't pay off Andy Madely. He'd deposit it in the bank with the ref: BRIBELFCWOL. Such is his incompetence.

[ryodi]

Liverpool have been on the wrong side of this kind of decision already this season. In the Arsenal game Saka looked offside for Arsenal's first goal but VAR was unable to check it so the on field decision stood, in that case the goal was stood.

 

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4766004/handball-by-gabriel-scamacca-antonio-rashford-and-saka-offside-decision

 

Quote

 

The VAR set the kick-point on Ben White, who played the pass to Saka, and then looked to use one of the other cameras, which are all time-synced, to apply the offside lines. Technology provider Hawk-Eye has five cameras around the pitch which can be used to place the offside lines, but Saka was out of shot on all of them at the point the ball was played by White.

 

From the tactical camera around the halfway line, which isn't calibrated for offside, there is definitely a question of offside against Saka as he's running back, specifically whether his back foot is ahead of the last defender, Trent Alexander-Arnold. But as the VAR could not apply the lines, Saka's offside position cannot be determined so the VAR has to stay with the decision on the pitch, which was onside. There is no suggestion the onside decision was incorrect based upon the available evidence, and if Saka had been clearly offside the decision would have been changed.

 

 

But you know LiVARpool and all that. 

[feltmonkey]

Yeah, the whole "deflection or deliberate attempt to play the ball" part of the offside law is clumsy as fuck.  There was one last season or the season before when Man City played Aston Villa where the ball was played in the air towards Rodri who was at least six yards offside. Mings intercepted it but as it was a high ball he wasn't able to get the ball completely under control (from memory it hadn't even hit the ground) before Rodri got to him and was able to challenge him and win the ball off him, leading to a goal that ultimately won the match. If a player is in an offside position when the ball is played, and plays a part in the subsequent "phase of play" (a nebulous and meaningless phrase anyway - football is a free-flowing sport and not played in phases) they should be offside. There are lots of instances when a defender can deliberately play the ball, but can't really control it because they're stretching or having to react faster than is possible, often in part because of an attacker in an offside position is affecting their positioning.

 

The real scandal for me though is the disallowed Wolves winner. There's no way that's offside at any point. Why are they claiming that there's no angle that VAR can use to decide that it's not offside when I've just watched one on the ITV YouTube channel? The guy who scored is behind the ball when it's crossed the first time, you can tell by the mowed lines on the pitch, and nowhere near offside when the second shot comes in that he backheels into the net. Are they saying that the offside came when the ball was headed back to the player who took the corner? Wasn't it headed by a defender and then deflected off a Wolves head, by which time the player was onside anyway? ITV's picture quality isn't the best.

[Fry Crayola]

2 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

Are they saying that the offside came when the ball was headed back to the player who took the corner? Wasn't it headed by a defender and then deflected off a Wolves head, by which time the player was onside anyway? ITV's picture quality isn't the best.

 

Yeah, they're saying Nunes was offside, he took the corner. The ball appeared to be played back to him by a Wolves man. But as he's never in shot, it's unclear if he's offside or not.

[feltmonkey]

Players these days wear those weird sports bras with GPS trackers in don't they? I wonder if those could be utilised in these situations. Or just have a single very high definition very high framerate camera above the pitch that has the whole pitch in shot, in order to stop this happening again.

 

I would hope that there was some communication between the VAR and the linesman in this incident, to check whether he raised his flag because he thought Nunes was offside rather than one of the two other moments that I mentioned. If there was communication, he was flagging Nunes, and he was convinced, then I guess you have to take his decision as final. If they didn't communicate and just went, "well he might have meant this guy out of shot was offside" and not overturned it because they didn't have enough evidence. Unfortunately, I suspect it might well have been the latter, because I'm not sure how a linesman on the far side could have been certain who headed the corner back out wide.

[Boothjan]

48 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

 

Yeah, they're saying Nunes was offside, he took the corner. The ball appeared to be played back to him by a Wolves man. But as he's never in shot, it's unclear if he's offside or not.

There's an angle which clearly shows Nunes wasnt offside. Which is apparently why it was disallowed. 

 

 

Its criminal by the officials.

 

I'm not buying the LiVARpool bullshit, that's primary school nonsense, but it's clear to me that the buffoons in charge of VAR haven't got a clue what they're doing. 

 

We've been cheated out of a 4th round place by ineptitude. 

[SMD]

you're going to beat us in the replay, don't worry

[paulie12]

13 hours ago, The Fox said:

Would love this bloke to do his ACL not gonna lie.

Your mum let you stay up late last night again.

[dizogg]

It’s a fantastic decision. Quite simply because THIS MEANS MORE.

 

Let’s be honest though officials will always get decisions wrong. There are less wrong decisions now because of VAR, but there’s a microscope on it and an expectation that 100% of decisions should be correct. 

[Fry Crayola]

I think at the very least, expecting camera angles to actually cover the pitch is a small ask.

[bradigor]

4 minutes ago, SMD said:

you're going to beat us in the replay, don't worry

 

This is true. The traditional Wolves 2-1 Liverpool at Molyneux in the FA Cup.

[dizogg]

2 minutes ago, Fry Crayola said:

I think at the very least, expecting camera angles to actually cover the pitch is a small ask.

Yeah not least because it means you can have more replays of all the cool goals we score.

 

[paulie12]

1 hour ago, feltmonkey said:

Yeah, the whole "deflection or deliberate attempt to play the ball" part of the offside law is clumsy as fuck.

it’s been the law for nearly a decade. Suarez knocked England out of the World Cup based on it. It happens all the time. 

 

https://wired868.com/2014/06/19/uruguay-bites-back-suarez-sinks-england-but-he-was-offside/

 

It’s a shit rule, but not something we can blame on the Refs or VAR. 

[feltmonkey]

41 minutes ago, Boothjan said:

There's an angle which clearly shows Nunes wasnt offside. Which is apparently why it was disallowed. 

 

 

Its criminal by the officials.

 

I'm not buying the LiVARpool bullshit, that's primary school nonsense, but it's clear to me that the buffoons in charge of VAR haven't got a clue what they're doing. 

 

We've been cheated out of a 4th round place by ineptitude. 

 

Actually, and it pains me to say this, I think that proves that he was offside.  

 

It's the first header that's important, isn't it?  When the ball is flicked out to him by the second header, he's in an onside position, but you can see that from the original footage.  The first header seems to be won by the Wolves player who runs from the penalty spot but the ball travels back the way it came and is then flicked by the second Wolves player towards Nunes.  This is the point when the first header was won - 

 

 

He looks offside.

 

When does he become active though?  The law doesn't really specify what a phase of play is. If you're offside and then a couple of passes are played before the ball comes to you, are you offside? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. What about an instance like this where the ball is pinballing about, and it's an attempted header that comes off a players back then a semi-deflection before the ball comes to the player who was offside from the first touch? I don't think ANYONE really understands this at the moment, including the officials.  Phases of play and active or non-active status are both poorly defined in the laws of the game.

 

Edit - Sorry, the original version of this post had that image in it four times, in various different sizes. I struggle with the attachment thing on rllmuk, even though it really couldn't be much simpler.  

[feltmonkey]

8 minutes ago, paulie12 said:

it’s been the law for nearly a decade. Suarez knocked England out of the World Cup based on it. It happens all the time. 

 

https://wired868.com/2014/06/19/uruguay-bites-back-suarez-sinks-england-but-he-was-offside/

 

It’s a shit rule, but not something we can blame on the Refs or VAR. 

 

I know, I'm not blaming the referees, I'm saying the law itself is clumsy.  The fact that it has been clumsy for a decade doesn't change this.

 

The main effect VAR is having is showing up how poorly-worded, ill-defined, and just plain silly a lot of the laws are.

[paulie12]

14 minutes ago, feltmonkey said:

 

I know, I'm not blaming the referees, I'm saying the law itself is clumsy.  The fact that it has been clumsy for a decade doesn't change this.

 

The main effect VAR is having is showing up how poorly-worded, ill-defined, and just plain silly a lot of the laws are.

100%. I meant ‘we’ as in football fans in general.

 

I was at the game (other end of pitch) and I was sure it was going to be a goal for the winner as it looked well inside to me. VAR is at fault here not the ref. First, because it didn’t have the necessary number of cameras to deal with and second because it makes the linesman’s job re offsides irrelevant (until it’s not like in this case). They know that VAR is going to look at it to the mm so it’s almost irrelevant to them if they get it right. 
 

Fuck VAR.

 

 

[Art Vandelay]

VAR is the butter with which incompetence and corruption are able to spread across multiple people absolving any individual of blame. 

[ChewMagma]

4 hours ago, bradigor said:

 

Because offside is an outdated rule that needs scrapping. Designed to stop goalhanging and now punishing better reaction speeds. 

 

As mentioned we had the same a few years back with Kane getting a penalty out of it. 

 

I complained at the time as I didn't know the rules has been adjusted. Now it is just pathetic. Wolves should be through with a legitimate 3-2 win. 

 

If you wholly scrapped the offside rule wouldn't the game just become more defensive and static?

[dizogg]

Football fans are maniacs too, it’s a tribal game.

 

Reaction to a decision favouring Liverpool (or any big club): CORRUPTION! DISGUSTING!! 
 

Reaction to a decision disadvantaging Liverpool: LOL!

 

Not me though, I rise above all that. 

[AfromB]

It’s amazing how many people still believe that Mike Dean is from Liverpool and that he has two sons who are season ticket holders at Anfield. 

[layten]

Nice save.

 

 

[Hamus]

Is Leeds' second not offside these days?

[SeanR]

22 minutes ago, Hamus said:

Is Leeds' second not offside these days?

 

would have been in the 2019/2020 season... 

[Chewylegs]

6 hours ago, ryodi said:

Liverpool have been on the wrong side of this kind of decision already this season. In the Arsenal game Saka looked offside for Arsenal's first goal but VAR was unable to check it so the on field decision stood, in that case the goal was stood.

 

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/english-premier-league/story/4766004/handball-by-gabriel-scamacca-antonio-rashford-and-saka-offside-decision

 

 

But you know LiVARpool and all that. 

Also, the linesman ruled it (wolves goal) offside. Surely you have to go with the officials verdict if there is no clear footage.  It would be much worse if they overuled the decision of the ref/linesman with no VAR verdict possible.

[SeanR]

2 hours ago, ChewMagma said:

 

If you wholly scrapped the offside rule wouldn't the game just become more defensive and static?

 

there's no offside in Hockey... 

[Plissken]

Slightly different rules around the ball touching the foot though...

[davidcotton]

Reminder that Barcelona vs Atletico Madrid is on itv4 tonight at 19:45.   

[glb]

Stevenage!