Live Match Discussion 2022/23

[Mel Evo]

Doesn’t it just answer itself if it takes that long to decide it’s clear and obvious? It simply can’t be true by definition. So it just looks like they’re poking about for a technicality with no thought of those watching in the ground or the joy they are sucking out of the event. However, to make my positionality clear… I despise VAR and what it’s done to my experience of the game.

 

[Charlie Wolf]

As Rashford miraculously turned into Danny Wellbeck

 

[jd1981]

You think it was blatant, a clear and obvious error even though that want the incident that was first looked at?

I get you hate Villa but this is an odd hill to die on.

Because it’s not checked first does that mean it’s not an error? Very odd logic, I’m not very keen on Man Utd either, I don’t hate Villa in fact I don’t hate anyone in relation to football far to much other crap going on in life to despise over football.

 

[Del Woppio]

Bullshit from var. That wasn't correcting a howler, which is the point of it. It was desperately searching for a reason to disallow the goal. And a bullshit one at that. There'd be penalties every game if blockers were penalised all the time

 

[WolfMan]

Nice try Villa but you're no Wolves

 

[WsWolf]

That nonsense you can’t just body check someone off the ball then moan when it’s spotted.

Happens on nearly every single corner at most levels of the game.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Happens on nearly every single corner at most levels of the game.

Can’t be offside on a corner though

 

[WsWolf]

Can’t be offside on a corner though

Who was offside? I didn't see anyone offside from the 200 or so replays.

 

[PuntsWolf]

Who was offside? I didn't see anyone offside from the 200 or so replays.

Ramsey was offside blocking Cavani. That is why it was disallowed.

He was offside and interfered with play. That is not for debate. Same as Raul was offside and interfered with play against Chelsea.

 

[WsWolf]

Ramsey was offside blocking Cavani. That is why it was disallowed.

He was offside and interfered with play. That is not for debate. Same as Raul was offside and interfered with play against Chelsea.

Interesting, that isn't my understanding of the rules as he doesn't block the keepers eyeline or go towards the ball. I've never understood the term interfered with play though as everyone is at any time the ball is in play as it will all have an effect on defensive positioning.

 

[Throbber3]

Ramsey was offside blocking Cavani. That is why it was disallowed.

He was offside and interfered with play. That is not for debate. Same as Raul was offside and interfered with play against Chelsea.

Only if Cavani was going to get to the ball. I dont think he was getting near it. Its a homer decision for me. Without VAR that goal stands and nobody complains , bar Cavani and even that wont last long. So the fact we can debate it and see it from two different points of view , based on our interpretation of the rules means its not a clear and obvious error. I hate Villa but they were sawn off by VAR on that one.3 minutes to reach the decision. VAR is a disgrace in the Premier league as it seems to look more often than not, for reasons top disallow a goal rather than clear and obvious refereeing errors. I am a real fan of technology to improve the game but Rileys mob have just added another level of bureaucracy and its not good for the game.

 

[PuntsWolf]

. I've never understood the term interfered with play though as everyone is at any time the ball is in play as it will all have an effect on defensive positioning.

Agreed. It’s a pre planned set piece routine to get Konsa a free header, so he’s obviously interfering with play.

Only if Cavani was going to get to the ball. I dont think he was getting near it.

He had a yard head start? Of course he was going to get near it. And him simply being there may make Konsa fuck it up or block the header.

Its a homer decision for me. Without VAR that goal stands and nobody complains , bar Cavani and even that wont last long.

I don’t like VAR how it is currently used. But arguing for wrong decisions is silly.

So the fact we can debate it and see it from two different points of view , based on our interpretation of the rules means its not a clear and obvious error.

It’s offside and he’s interfering. It’s not debateable. Black and white decision.

I hate Villa but they were sawn off by VAR on that one.3 minutes to reach the decision. VAR is a disgrace in the Premier league as it seems to look more often than not, for reasons top disallow a goal rather than clear and obvious refereeing errors. I am a real fan of technology to improve the game but Rileys mob have just added another level of bureaucracy and its not good for the game.

The clear and obvious thing is the issue. It’s shoud be “is it the right decision”. You can’t say they are “just trying to disallow goals” as they literally gave a pen against us a few weeks ago for handball which pretty conclusively wasn’t handball.

 

[WsWolf]

We get into murky waters if that is classed as offside then any time a ball is passed through to someone running on and a previously offside striker impedes a defenders recovery run it should also be classed as offside, which I don't agree with. I can definitely see your point though and I didn't see if that was actually what was given rather than a foul?

 

[Johnny75]

We get into murky waters if that is classed as offside then any time a ball is passed through to someone running on and a previously offside striker impedes a defenders recovery run it should also be classed as offside, which I don't agree with. I can definitely see your point though and I didn't see if that was actually what was given rather than a foul?

It was the foul that was given. Nothing to do with being offside.

Punts had the rule wrong. You're not actively offside until you're deemed to be interfering with play in that phase.

As Ramsey wasn't interfering, blocking a line of sight and could not touch the ball at any point he couldn't have been given offside.

Giving it for the foul was appalling refereeing, particularly as Cavani could not have affected the play either.

 

[WsWolf]

It was the foul that was given. Nothing to do with being offside.

Punts had the rule wrong. You're not actively offside until you're deemed to be interfering with play in that phase.

As Ramsey wasn't interfering, blocking a line of sight and could not touch the ball at any point he couldn't have been given offside.

Giving it for the foul was appalling refereeing, particularly as Cavani could not have affected the play either.

Thought as much. Which brings me back round to my original point, if we are giving free kicks for blocking runners I doubt we'd see many goals from corners going forward.

 

[Johnny75]

Thought as much. Which brings me back round to my original point, if we are giving free kicks for blocking runners I doubt we'd see many goals from corners going forward.

A lot of set pieces rely on players blocking spaces and attacking spaces. Ramsey blocked a space.

If we're going to see free kicks for that there's going to be a lot of defenders running into attackers to get free kicks.

It's not a rabbit hole we should be going down.

 

[PuntsWolf]

We get into murky waters if that is classed as offside then any time a ball is passed through to someone running on and a previously offside striker impedes a defenders recovery run it should also be classed as offside, which I don't agree with. I can definitely see your point though and I didn't see if that was actually what was given rather than a foul?

He gave an indirect free kick which suggests offside.

 

[Johnny75]

He gave an indirect free kick which suggests offside.

He didnt

 

[WsWolf]

He gave an indirect free kick which suggests offside.

Obstruction is also an indirect free kick which kind of makes this moot.

 

[PuntsWolf]

He didnt

He did