Popular Post KentVillan Posted January 23, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) Very clear now on the Sky coverage of the Newcastle game that the Watkins goal wasn’t checked for offside by VAR because of Schar’s touch. Now of course it seems like Watkins was probably onside anyway because he was slightly behind the ball, but the point is that should have been checked. We would expect it to be checked if it had happened to us. Are we really rewriting the offside law now so that Watkins isn’t interfering with play there? Schar is literally trying to intercept a pass to... Watkins. This is blatant attempt by PGMOL to close ranks on their bizarre interpretation of the rules in the City game. But clearly now this is just going to become “the rules”. What a load of **** nonsense. (EDIT: A lot of people saying every goal is checked by VAR. The point is they didn't get their laser lines out to check Watkins' position (we'd know if they did), which is what would normally happen if there was *any* hint of offside. And the reason they didn't do that, according to Sky - who will have got their info from the VAR team - is that Schar got a touch on the ball.) Edited January 23, 2021 by KentVillan 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Think Watkins behind the ball when played... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, Dale said: Think Watkins behind the ball when played... he wasn’t he was off. The rules have changed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dale Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, Vive_La_Villa said: he wasn’t he was off. The rules have changed! Bonkers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) By the rules I thought I thought I knew, he's offside and it shouldn't have counted. They didnt give the reason of him being behind the ball as the reason it stood. They didnt even check it because Schar played it, regardless of Watkins being offside before. Edited January 23, 2021 by StefanAVFC 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fightoffyour Posted January 23, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 23, 2021 Should’ve been offside if he was offside, the touch by the defender doesn’t negate that because Watkins didn’t receive it from him after a deliberate play. Crazy that it happened back to us literally the first goal we scored after the incident. The new rule, if that’s what it is, is bollocks. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 28 minutes ago, Dale said: Think Watkins behind the ball when played... yep I said in my post - he might have been on because of that (although others disagreeing) My point is VAR have said they didn’t review because of Schar’s touch. That’s madness. The rule never used to be interpreted like this. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tom_avfc Posted January 23, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2021 They’ve definitely called that onside because of the defender’s touch. It’s saved us the 2 minutes of line drawing but it’s absolutely ridiculous. The doubling down on a stupid decision has changed the entire rules of football in the premier league and not for the better. 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 hour ago, Dale said: Bonkers Sorry mate he was behind the ball but they said he would have been onside anyway because of the defenders touch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Why are the pundits happy with this rule change? Can they not see that it’s completely mental that a touch like that would play someone onside. Strangely I actually wish Watkins had been stood a couple of yards further forward. It would have outlined the stupidity of this new rule if he’d been yards offside but that touch had played him onside. How long is this rule going to last before they backtrack? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kidlewis Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Their mess up in our game vs City has literally changed the interpretation of the rule overnight. They can’t go back now. their own stupid fault. Hope it causes carnage all over the place for other sides. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post leemond2008 Posted January 23, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2021 Terrible play by the defender if you ask me, we all know that when someone plays a cross into the box the last thing that you do as a defender is try and defend it just in case the striker is offside. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Yeah regardless of whether he is behind the ball or not, that needs to be checked. Watkins being there influences Schar. Otherwise a striker can just stand near a defender, force a mistake and run onto it. They've broken the game protecting a ref who isnt for for purpose in either sense of the word. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 I could swear he was behind the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Michelsen said: I could swear he was behind the ball? He was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 They’ve backed themselves into a corner over it because of Wednesday, hugely ironic that such a similar (but not) situation occurred tonight with us the potentially beneficiaries. I’ll bet the PL people were praying it wouldn’t happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, Michelsen said: I could swear he was behind the ball? He might have been, it was very close. The issue is that it wasn’t even checked. We’ve had goals that have looked as onside as that one ruled out by Watkins’ shirt sleeve before. The touch by the defender now means that Watkins couldn’t have been offside even if he was offside going by the rules that have been in place forever. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 2 minutes ago, Michelsen said: I could swear he was behind the ball? Not the point mate. They said they didnt even check it because Schar played it. He may be behind the ball but they should be checking it, as I understood the rules as Watkins influences him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, tom_avfc said: He might have been, it was very close. The issue is that it wasn’t even checked. We’ve had goals that have looked as onside as that one ruled out by Watkins’ shirt sleeve before. The touch by the defender now means that Watkins couldn’t have been offside even if he was offside going by the rules that have been in place forever. It did take just a few seconds for them to kick off again, so to me it felt like they were giving it a look. If they’ve dismissed it right off the bat because of Schar’s touch, then that would be confirmation of a complete reinvention of the offside rule, but I’m not sure they’ve done that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: Not the point mate. They said they didnt even check it because Schar played it. He may be behind the ball but they should be checking it, as I understood the rules as Watkins influences him. I thought they checked every goal on var ? but that said I think the bloke checking it probably muttered under his breath “ ffs why me “ and gave it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts