No idea how they van rationalise giving that Barkley goal.
They don't have to. It was against United and they know full well they won't get any flack from the media for itNo idea how they van rationalise giving that Barkley goal.
Not interfering for me.
The excuse will inevitably be that it needs to be "clear and obvious" for the initial call to be changed.
But how many countless times have we seen an ambiguous or 60-40 replay lead to an overturned call?
As always it's the absolute inconsistency of the application that pisses me off.
Explain yourselfNot interfering for me.
They just need to feck off with the bs. Its just their get out of jail free card for whatever mistakes they make. That "clear and obvious" bs basically removes all the objectivity from decision making what technology was meant to bring here.The excuse will inevitably be that it needs to be "clear and obvious" for the initial call to be changed.
But how many countless times have we seen an ambiguous or 60-40 replay lead to an overturned call?
As always it's the absolute inconsistency of the application that pisses me off.
Doesn't impact the outcome - doesn't affect the keeper's ability to save it.Explain yourself
He's not, but I think he touched the ballNot interfering for me.
He's not covering the goalkeeper's line of sight to the ballExplain yourself
Doesn't impact the outcome - doesn't affect the keeper's ability to save it.
Similar to United's 3rd goal there.
They're both good goals. The position is only relevant in whether it affects the goalkeeper's ability to make the save. And it doesn'tIf he doesn't move out of the way the ball hits him and isn't a goal. It's similar to the Liverpool one that was ruled out because Robertson ducked. They're either both good goals or both should get ruled out.
They're both good goals. The position is only relevant in whether it affects the goalkeeper's ability to make the save. And it doesn't
That said, from the replay I thought he actually did touch the ball, so I think it was offside
You're affecting the keeper if you're interefering with his line of sight(or movement). If moving out of the way works as a dummy basically. Here, Lammens sees the ball throughout. Onana's position doesn't affect his ability to make the saveThe inconsistency is ridiculous.
For me, if you're offside and move out of the way of the ball then you have to be affecting the keeper. I have no idea how anyone can argue that's not the case.
You're affecting the keeper if you're interefering with his line of sight(or movement). If moving out of the way works as a dummy basically. Here, Lammens sees the ball throughout. Onana's position doesn't affect his ability to make the save
If the keeper has sight on the ball, your position isn't affecting his ability to make the save
If he doesn't dive because he's worried about the position of the offside player, than that's on him
If you have to literally duck out of the way of the ball in order to not block it with your body, you're fecking obstructing play when in an offside position. How is it even possible to think otherwise? Baffling. It's not just a matter of outright blocking the keeper's vision, it's also about being in a position that your team benefits from. He very clearly was, being literally in the actual path of the ball. Defenders have to account for him, and are prevented from being in the same position due to him, so his offside position contributed directly to the goal.
If that's not considered offside, players should just stand in a line all the way across goal so that no defenders are able to get into any positions, and then all fling themselves to the ground just as the attacker shoots. Hey presto, wide open goal.
Offsides don't fall under clear and obvious.
They don't seem to have even considered whether it was a subjective offside.
Haven't heard about one of them since they used it to rule out a McTominay goal a few years back.
Taylor is usually shite but I liked that he wasn't buying players from both sides looking for soft fouls just by throwing themselves down. He bought one or two but he mostly just told players to get up. That is the approach needed to slowly kill off diving.
Thought he was fine today, let a lot go.
Did they ever show the possible handball before the offside call, Taylor couldn't have seen that one, but not sure if it was included in the VAR check?
Didn’t need to be frame by frame - you could tell on the first replay it hit him. There’s a clear deviation afterwards. Onana even said it hit him. Only one who said it didn’t was the refIf you have to go through it frame by frame like the Zapruder film to tell whether or not it's hit his arse, I'm pretty sure he's close enough to be interfering with play.
Didn’t need to be frame by frame - you could tell on the first replay it hit him. There’s a clear deviation afterwards. Onana even said it hit him. Only one who said it didn’t was the ref
You're affecting the keeper if you're interefering with his line of sight(or movement). If moving out of the way works as a dummy basically. Here, Lammens sees the ball throughout. Onana's position doesn't affect his ability to make the save
If the keeper has sight on the ball, your position isn't affecting his ability to make the save
If he doesn't dive because he's worried about the position of the offside player, than that's on him
I think in this scenario it doesn't change the keeper's decision. It's different to a long sweeping cross where the keeper is calculating and adjusting their movement based on whether someone offside will get their head on it. It's a close-range well-struck shot that is past the offside attacker before the keeper can make a decision.The keeper doesn't know the bloke is offside and has to take into account that he could get a touch on it. Of course it affects his ability to judge where the ball is going and to make the save.
I don’t know why more not been said about Mings potential handball than glancing someone’s shorts. SKY haven’t shown it back but real time, it looked like he pushed his arms together to control it
I think in this scenario it doesn't change the keeper's decision. It's different to a long sweeping cross where the keeper is calculating and adjusting their movement based on whether someone offside will get their head on it. It's a close-range well-struck shot that is past the offside attacker before the keeper can make a decision.
I reckon there are more legs in the argument that the nearest United defender is obstructed, but again it's past him before he can react so I don't think that argument stands either.
Sesko's goal is the same. A clearly offside attacker judged not to interfere because the ball is passed him before he or the keeper can react.
Neither player are in or close to the keeper's line of sight so I don't think it's a relevant factor. The difference for me is that Onana has had to take evasive action to get away from the ball, whereas Dalot has decided not to try and flick it on as it looped over him. But neither player has tried to interfere, or has interfered, with the keeper's decision, and their position has not affected the outcome.The Dalot situation is different. He's even further from the keepers line of sight. It looks a little similar from one angle but from the other is clear he isn't in the path of the ball.
I’m in the same boat. Tried looking for replays today but they’re all grainy videos because Sky thought nothing of it so didn’t include it in their highlights.I don’t know why more not been said about Mings potential handball than glancing someone’s shorts. SKY haven’t shown it back but real time, it looked like he pushed his arms together to control it
Neither player are in or close to the keeper's line of sight so I don't think it's a relevant factor. The difference for me is that Onana has had to take evasive action to get away from the ball, whereas Dalot has decided not to try and flick it on as it looped over him. But neither player has tried to interfere, or has interfered, with the keeper's decision, and their position has not affected the outcome.
Not really relevant, if had touched it it would have been ruled out, Lammens wasn't saving that even if Onana wasn't anywhere near itDo they not factor in the split decision that Lammens must make if Onana gets a touch?
That is surely interefering with is ability to commit to the dive.
