Jump to content

The Reinvention of the Offside Law


KentVillan

Recommended Posts

2 minutes 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’m not sure who ‘they’ are, but if that is anyone in any official capacity, that is completely mental. Like I said, to me it felt like there was a slight delay, and they gave it a look and saw Ollie was behind the ball and didn’t see the need to spend all night looking at blurry stills and arbitrary lines, but I might be wrong. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we've now entered a parallel world where suddenly the best way to catch someone offside is to avoid playing any sort of defensive action, let the attacker score and have it brought back after a VAR check.

That seems... unintuitive.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

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 

Nope they said many times in the studio that they didnt check it because Schar made the touch. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

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.

I don’t understand half of the replies in this thread so far...

He wasn’t offside so we haven’t benefitted, yet now Sky and the premier league get to go “look see, this is rule and it’s benefitted Aston Villa too”, it’s more of the cover their arse crap, Sky did not have to emphasise TWICE that Ollie Watkins was played onside by the defenders touch, he was inside because he was behind the ball when it was played! 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Michelsen said:

I’m not sure who ‘they’ are, but if that is anyone in any official capacity, that is completely mental. Like I said, to me it felt like there was a slight delay, and they gave it a look and saw Ollie was behind the ball and didn’t see the need to spend all night looking at blurry stills and arbitrary lines, but I might be wrong. 

Sky said that thats what the VAR room said. 

They've reinvented the rule. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Sky said that thats what the VAR room said. 

They've reinvented the rule. 

If the VAR room said that, it’s completely scandalous. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Nope they said many times in the studio that they didnt check it because Schar made the touch. 

Yeah I heard them say that as well which is why I had a Google on yahoo and it there it states otherwise 

 

All goals scored in the Premier League will automatically be checked by the Video Assistant Referee (VAR).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

I don’t understand half of the replies in this thread so far...

He wasn’t offside so we haven’t benefitted, yet now Sky and the premier league get to go “look see, this is rule and it’s benefitted Aston Villa too”, it’s more of the cover their arse crap, Sky did not have to emphasise TWICE that Ollie Watkins was played onside by the defenders touch, he was inside because he was behind the ball when it was played! 

The point is, that they didnt even check because of the touch. their words. Regardless of who benefits, I'd rather the game be fair. 

That's why i was so annoyed about the City game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tonyh29 said:

Yeah I heard them say that as well which is why I had a Google on yahoo and it there it states otherwise 

 

 

Where did they get that info from then? I doubt they made it up. It gets more and more farcical. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobzy said:

I might be missing something...

 

...why did they need to check for an offside when the striker is behind the ball when it's played?

The point is, they should check it every single time as Tony said. Especially when it's as tight as it looked (I thought he was off!)

But they didnt, and they said they didnt purely because Schar touched it last. 

That's the issue here. I want everything checked to make sure it's fair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

The point is, they should check it every single time as Tony said. Especially when it's as tight as it looked (I thought he was off!)

But they didnt, and they said they didnt purely because Schar touched it last. 

That's the issue here. I want everything checked to make sure it's fair. 

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is.  They check every goal.  This was a person who wasn't offside (I thought he was onside in real time FWIW) being... not offside.  And we're outraged?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I'm not entirely sure what the issue is.  They check every goal.  This was a person who wasn't offside (I thought he was onside in real time FWIW) being... not offside.  And we're outraged?

They said they didnt check. Purely because of Schar's touch. That's what's baffling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, One For The Road said:

Why on earth should Watkins goal be checked for offside by VAR? 

He was clearly behind the ball when it was played and that's that. 

Because they check every goal (or they should) 

But this time they chose not to because Schar touched it last (which was never the rule if hes influenced by an offside player)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â