General officiating/rules

[Stevo985]

2 hours ago, Hornso said:

It wasn’t offside because Watkins was behind the ball.

 

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

I really dont think he was. 

Also they said they didnt even check it because Schar played it. So whether he was or not is irrelevant based on their reinvention of the rules. 

You're both right.

He was behind the ball so he's onside.

But they haven't checked it regardless because Schar played the ball. Which is bollocks.

[Keyblade]

This is the Fulham/West Ham incident all over again, but even worse because the ball goes straight to Watkins who immediately scores. I think he was just onside anyway, but thankfully their stupid rule means that they couldn't break out the fake lines to try to rule him off anyway.

[Davkaus]

The offside and handball rules are honestly putting me off the game. IFAB and PGMOL need a proper shakeup. 

[Talldarkandransome]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

The offside and handball rules are honestly putting me off the game. IFAB and PGMOL need a proper shakeup. 

There was a handball in the Sheff Utd Plymouth FA cup game, Plymouth player had both arms above his head inside the area and it hit his elbow, the shot came from a good distance away but no penalty. VAR checked it and all you could hear was GREEN ZONE NO PEN.. 

[Zatman]

1 hour ago, Davkaus said:

The offside and handball rules are honestly putting me off the game. IFAB and PGMOL need a proper shakeup. 

I think ifab is an excuse for shit refs, other leagues use common sense. In SerieA, La Liga, Bundesliga is no issue at all

[Rightdm00]

People are confusing themselves with Ollie's goal versus Newcastle. Every goal is checked by VAR. Why they didn't draw the lines on the tv I have no clue but they definitely checked it.  Sometimes the check is so fast the ref doesn't have to hold up the kickoff. 

The goal stood because Ollie was onside when Targett played the original pass. He was behind the ball. Must have trimmed his shirt sleeves. 

[darrenm]

5 hours ago, Rightdm00 said:

People are confusing themselves with Ollie's goal versus Newcastle. Every goal is checked by VAR. Why they didn't draw the lines on the tv I have no clue but they definitely checked it.  Sometimes the check is so fast the ref doesn't have to hold up the kickoff. 

The goal stood because Ollie was onside when Targett played the original pass. He was behind the ball. Must have trimmed his shirt sleeves. 

I don't think so. When they say every goal is checked it's a quick scan by the VAR that nothing obvious was missed. When they think there's a tight call to be made about an offside then they get the lines out and we get to see their laughable attempts at Google SketchUp. Last night people were surprised that the VAR didn't get the lines out and didn't think the offside even needed checking because it means the refs have doubled down on their misinterpretation of the intercepting a backpass clause.

[May-Z]

Easy to whinge about poor ones but I thought the ref was good last night. Probably because Newcastle didn't compete enough to make it difficult to manage.

I didn't recognise him; looked like a new recruit.

 

[Zatman]

47 minutes ago, May-Z said:

Easy to whinge about poor ones but I thought the ref was good last night. Probably because Newcastle didn't compete enough to make it difficult to manage.

I didn't recognise him; looked like a new recruit.

 

I think commentator said it was his 6th top flight game

[CardiffGreens]

12 hours ago, Talldarkandransome said:

There was a handball in the Sheff Utd Plymouth FA cup game, Plymouth player had both arms above his head inside the area and it hit his elbow, the shot came from a good distance away but no penalty. VAR checked it and all you could hear was GREEN ZONE NO PEN.. 

When I saw that I assumed it was the rarely seen interpretation that his hands were up to protect his face from being smacked by the ball.

Only thing is that the handball law no longer lists that as an exception from being a handball offense as far as I can see.

 

Edit.  The only thing I can assume is that because his hands were in front of his face, he wasn't making his body bigger (which would potentially be the reason for the non award, but even then...)

 

Edit 2, I assume "green zone" refers to the ball hitting above the t-shirt line.  Which just then raises further questions (though I only saw the incident a couple of times late last night, it certainly didn't seem to hit him anywhere near there).

Edited January 24, 2021 by CardiffGreens

[Talldarkandransome]

1 hour ago, CardiffGreens said:

When I saw that I assumed it was the rarely seen interpretation that his hands were up to protect his face from being smacked by the ball.

Only thing is that the handball law no longer lists that as an exception from being a handball offense as far as I can see.

 

Edit.  The only thing I can assume is that because his hands were in front of his face, he wasn't making his body bigger (which would potentially be the reason for the non award, but even then...)

 

Edit 2, I assume "green zone" refers to the ball hitting above the t-shirt line.  Which just then raises further questions (though I only saw the incident a couple of times late last night, it certainly didn't seem to hit him anywhere near there).

It appeared to hit him between elbow and wrist, which as far as I know isn't the green zone unless you are wearing red

[Davkaus]

Christ, the injury to Dael Fry was nasty. Kicked in the face by a defender, blood pouring down his face and his eye bruised shut.

Ref's verdict: goal kick. 

[blunther]

On 21/01/2021 at 13:40, gilbertoAVFC said:

The major issue for me is the lack of transparency. For me, this inevitably will lead to accusations of corruption - not least because the world-wide betting turnover on any given Prem game is in excess of a billion a game. Refs get paid, what, three-figures a game? Go figure my concerns, especially when there are a dozen teams in the Prem sponsored by massive, Asian-based bookmakers with huuuuge stake limits - most of which are illegal in the country which they target and are vehicles to launder money!

This this this a thousand times. I've been saying it yet I get looked at like I have two heads for suggesting the game is corrupt. It's worth billions, with billions staked each week, almost exclusively sponsored by foreign bookies, and with governing bodies as bent as the PL, UEFA and FIFA and refs are paid a comparative pittance. Of COURSE corruption and match fixing is rife, it would be miraculous if it was otherwise. You'd need comparative pennies to buy a ref. £50k into a secret offshore bank account for chucking us a dodgy pen here, a dodgy offside decision there, of course it happens and of course they take it. VAR is just one more official that can be bought. VAR is probably the best one to buy off as it's so secretive and inscrutable.

[villa4europe]

18 hours ago, Davkaus said:

Christ, the injury to Dael Fry was nasty. Kicked in the face by a defender, blood pouring down his face and his eye bruised shut.

Ref's verdict: goal kick. 

If it's on the floor and he's that late and boots him in the shin it's a foul, probably the easiest foul you'll ever see given

But if the balls 6ft in the air and he's late and boots him in the face it's not? 

[jimmygreaves]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

If it's on the floor and he's that late and boots him in the shin it's a foul, probably the easiest foul you'll ever see given

But if the balls 6ft in the air and he's late and boots him in the face it's not? 

The same as the Raul Jimenez incident against Arsenal.... David Luiz was soooo late..... but nothing given.

[Stevo985]

21 hours ago, jimmygreaves said:

The same as the Raul Jimenez incident against Arsenal.... David Luiz was soooo late..... but nothing given.

Certain things seem to be excused from normal foul "rules"

I always use the example of goalkeepers. In the air keepers are over protected. They get fouls for anything.

But on the ground, you can do anything to a keeper. How many times have you seen a keeper go down for a ball and a striker come piling in and hurt him. It's never a foul. it's always dismissed as "well he had every right to go for it". You always have every right to go for a ball, but if you studs up a player in the shin on the halfway line you get sent off. But studs up a goalkeeper in the chest when he's diving for the ball and nothing is given.

 

And I think headers are the same, like you said. Anything in the air is seen as a fair challenge. See also Harry Kane's dangerous antics of backing into players when they go up for a header

[Zatman]

On goalkeeper protection, Gollini dropped a cross on Saturday then his momentum ran into Zlatan. Free Out

[StefanAVFC]

35 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Certain things seem to be excused from normal foul "rules"

I always use the example of goalkeepers. In the air keepers are over protected. They get fouls for anything.

But on the ground, you can do anything to a keeper. How many times have you seen a keeper go down for a ball and a striker come piling in and hurt him. It's never a foul. it's always dismissed as "well he had every right to go for it". You always have every right to go for a ball, but if you studs up a player in the shin on the halfway line you get sent off. But studs up a goalkeeper in the chest when he's diving for the ball and nothing is given.

 

And I think headers are the same, like you said. Anything in the air is seen as a fair challenge. See also Harry Kane's dangerous antics of backing into players when they go up for a header

Keepers also have it the other way. They can do anything to anyone in the air too. Ramsdale punching Engles in the face last year springs to mind.

[villa4europe]

44 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Certain things seem to be excused from normal foul "rules"

I always use the example of goalkeepers. In the air keepers are over protected. They get fouls for anything.

But on the ground, you can do anything to a keeper. How many times have you seen a keeper go down for a ball and a striker come piling in and hurt him. It's never a foul. it's always dismissed as "well he had every right to go for it". You always have every right to go for a ball, but if you studs up a player in the shin on the halfway line you get sent off. But studs up a goalkeeper in the chest when he's diving for the ball and nothing is given.

And I think headers are the same, like you said. Anything in the air is seen as a fair challenge. See also Harry Kane's dangerous antics of backing into players when they go up for a header

baggies fans are still frothing at the mouth because of how we cheated vs them in the playoffs, Gayle was so late on the keeper that of course it was a yellow card but as you say "got every right to go for it"

anywhere else on the pitch and no eye bats an eyelid, slide in to a keeper studs up a full second after he claimed the ball and its somehow not a foul? no chance, of course its a foul

we had one go in our favour in the liverpool game that i was surprised by, the young keeper got both hands on the top of ball and tried to pin it down to the ground rather than get his hands around it and i think salah put it in, i was surprised we got that decision, was fully expecting it to be a goal

[Stevo985]

11 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

baggies fans are still frothing at the mouth because of how we cheated vs them in the playoffs, Gayle was so late on the keeper that of course it was a yellow card but as you say "got every right to go for it"

anywhere else on the pitch and no eye bats an eyelid, slide in to a keeper studs up a full second after he claimed the ball and its somehow not a foul? no chance, of course its a foul

Yep exactly this. Somehow there is this weird group think that if you're challenging a keeper you can do whatever you want.

If anything Keepers should get more protection than outfield players as they're legally allowed to use their hands so it's inevitable that they'll usually be diving head first. But it seems to be the opposite.