Wolves 1-2 Man City: Verdict Thread

[BeaverWolf]

But he wasn't offside at the point he makes contact with Sa. Only once Stones heads the ball.

That is not what was said. Sa was unbalanced as a result of the backing in. So they both agreed the goal should not stand. I agree with them.

 

[BeaverWolf]

He's not in front of him when Stones heads it. They aren't the same. Fwiw I thought the Chirewa one was bullshit too. The potential foul is the issue which Kavanagh wasn't shown

And it was a foul.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Ref was annoying, but also the sub lino.

Two offsides that were close calls that he immediately out his flag up for, one came just seconds before their equaliser, RAN was given as off but it looked tight. Everything changes if he let's that play out.

Also is there a law where Silva is allowed to have his treatment on the pitch? He got kicked in the head by Foden, that's not our problem, get him off. Exactly the kind of bullshit that seems to go for the bigger clubs.

I thought the only time play couldn't go on for treatment was if the injured player had been fouled?

 

[Squeak]

They’re both in front of the keeper are we now penalising people because of how tall they’re?

They penalise it if it affects the keepers vision of the ball and therefore impacting play. The West Ham was 50:50 IMO. This one wasn't. Sa had clear sight of it at the moment the ball was headed.

 

[GLASGOWOLF]

Well, factually it is. Can only give it for an off the ball foul. Which IMV it isn’t

The only people agreeing with the ref, are those who are happy for Wolves to Lose.

I am sat with supporters of many teams all agreeing it was a joke including Everton, Palace, and Saints fans

 

[Tony Towner]

Ref was annoying, but also the sub lino.

Two offsides that were close calls that he immediately out his flag up for, one came just seconds before their equaliser on RAN it looked tight. Everything changes if he let's that play out.

Also is there a law where Silva is allowed to have his treatment on the pitch?

I thought the only time play couldn't go on for treatment was if the injured player had been fouled?

Head injury

 

[GLASGOWOLF]

Head injury

He was off the pitch came back on and went down

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Head injury

I've seen loads of head injuries treated on the side lines though? Is it a new(ish) thing to stop the game?

 

[Tony Towner]

He was off the pitch came back on and went down

Doesn't matter

 

[Squeak]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1848019095825903859

Thanks for this. Think it shows the difference in the vision of the keeper and why the decisions were made as they were.

 

[Tony Towner]

I've seen loads of head injuries treated on the side lines though? Is it a new(ish) thing to stop the game?

Got to be a decade or thereabouts

 

[The Saturday Boy]

It would have been really easy to stop this from happening, make the offside rule not open to interpretation. If a player is deliberately putting themselves in an offside position their intention is to have an impact on play. Forget line of sight or interfering, just call it offside. Attacking sides will soon stop pitting players on goalkeepers.

 

[Alan]

No credit from me. There was little else we could do other than block the middle of the pitch out and stink it out. That’s because we’ve failed to develop any credible alternative pattern of play and haven’t won a game for ages. So this doesn’t help at all when it comes to next week, in fact it’s worse as he’s still there with VAR to blame but no way forward.

It’s not enough credit to move him into a different sack bracket. (Quite proud of that one)

Playing the way we did today would, for the most part, be the path forward, frankly I don’t know why we’re in a hurry to dispose of it after that.

I still think Gary is clueless about how a midfield should play regardless of the numbers or shape, and that’s not going to be a cross we can bear for long (and in truth that moment may have passed already).

 

[The Bear]

As an aside, all three players who got booked today are now one booking away from a suspension. That's Semedo, Toti and Joao Gomes.

 

[jd1981]

Who thinks we get that decision at old Trafford, Anfield or the etihad in a reverse situation?

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Love to know how Kovacic didn't get booked in that instance. He wasn't even facing the play.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Who thinks we get that decision at old Trafford, Anfield or the etihad in a reverse situation?

Well of course not, we've been fucked hard at all three of those. Onana, Joao "handball", Salah offside, Toti disallowed goal.

 

[The Bear]

Who thinks we get that decision at old Trafford, Anfield or the etihad in a reverse situation?

This is it for me. Over the last few seasons how many controversial or "subjective" decisions have actually gone our way against the bigger clubs. And compare that to how many have gone against us against those top teams.

 

[Del Woppio]

The only people agreeing with the ref, are those who are happy for Wolves to Lose.

I am sat with supporters of many teams all agreeing it was a joke including Everton, Palace, and Saints fans

Then neither or your mates are paying attention. There's two questions:


Is it a foul? Maybe. Soft but there's a case for it.

Is it offside? He doesn't attempt the play the ball, and the keeper has a clear line of sight. It's very different to the kilman goal, where the kid is on Fabianski's toes in a direct line between him and kilman

 

[Alan]

Please someone tell me that the VAR ref was the same guy Hobbs told to get fucked