Wolves 1 Man United 1: “another Neves-esque classic goal” The Verdict thread

[Johnny75]

Where would you judge the defensive line to be in your take on the offside rule?

The nearest body part that can play the ball. It would give the attacker the benefit in some cases but then most people could live with that given football is about scoring goals.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

The nearest body part that can play the ball. It would give the attacker the benefit in some cases but then most people could live with that given football is about scoring goals.

Think that would cause more controversy personally. Say a forward is half a step ahead of the defence but his head is level with a defenders foot, ball whipped in 6 foot in the air and he scores the header. The defender is surely going to feel harshly done by when there's no chance he could have used his foot to defend that situation but it's the body that that's allowed his opponent to score with his head.

Doesn't seem fair to me. I think the current wording is about as fair as it gets, just needs to be speedier with VAR on some instances to pick the right points on opposing players for comparisons.

 

[Alan]

What do you expect?

Influencing matches more consistently, for a start.

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

How many matches would you say Michael Carrick had a huge influence on?

He was just fine to win tons of trophies with Man Utd though over the course of more than a decade and his role is roughly the one we've got Ruben playing at the moment.

 

[Pablowolf]

Wow. Sorry, superfan. I live a 350 mile round trip away, I have a family and not much money to spare, never mind the difficulty in obtaining tickets. I apologise for not living up to your high standards. Now do one, you fucking arse.

Whoa there, Pilgrim. Look at the message times, I was talking to Alan but your post sneaked in whilst I was typing mine.

 

[Boozad]

Influencing matches more consistently, for a start.

How? What is it specifically you want him to do? I’d like all of them to influence matches more as I’m sure everybody else would. He has off games like last night, everybody does, but he generally plays the role he’s being asked to play superbly and shows a maturity beyond his years. So what is it you’d like him to do?

 

[Banjo]

Think that would cause more controversy personally. Say a forward is half a step ahead of the defence but his head is level with a defenders foot, ball whipped in 6 foot in the air and he scores the header. The defender is surely going to feel harshly done by when there's no chance he could have used his foot to defend that situation but it's the body that that's allowed his opponent to score with his head.

Doesn't seem fair to me. I think the current wording is about as fair as it gets, just needs to be speedier with VAR on some instances to pick the right points on opposing players for comparisons.

I agree Mark. The offside rule is fine. It's long been the case that if part of your body that can score a goal is offside, then you're offside. What's weird for people is that, with VAR, it's now going to be properly enforced. Lots of goals will be chalked off as a result.

I know I keep using the rugby comparison (and, at times, the comparison isn't like-for-like), but in rugby (union), an offside line is created at every single ruck. Imagine this - you support the defending team. A player on the defending team is ever-so-slightly offside coming off the back of the ruck ready to make the next tackle, none of the on-field officials spot it, and then your player who is charging up to tackle makes an intercept, goes on a mazy run, beats three defenders and scores an amazing try in the corner and the crowd goes wild.

The ref will then check with the TMO (what we call the VAR in rugby) and the TMO will show incontrovertibly that the player who caught the intercept was offside at the ruck and therefore it's a penalty to the other team back at that ruck. Yes, if you support the team that 'scored' the try, you will have celebrated. You will have gone wild for the crazy skills that saw your player beat three defenders. But then you'll see the replay, you'll see on the screens that your player was offside and, whilst you'll be disappointed, you'll know for certain that it was the right call.

I don't have a problem with that. Offside is offside. What I hated yesterday is having no idea whatsoever why the ref was checking Neves' goal.

 

[Boozad]

And, in one moment of absolute genius, he influenced last night’s game pretty significantly don’t you think?

 

[Johnny75]

Think that would cause more controversy personally. Say a forward is half a step ahead of the defence but his head is level with a defenders foot, ball whipped in 6 foot in the air and he scores the header. The defender is surely going to feel harshly done by when there's no chance he could have used his foot to defend that situation but it's the body that that's allowed his opponent to score with his head.

Doesn't seem fair to me. I think the current wording is about as fair as it gets, just needs to be speedier with VAR on some instances to pick the right points on opposing players for comparisons.

What you be described as being unfair is exactly the reverse of the rule now. If a forward heads the ball from ibehind a defender but their foot is in front they're offside. Or an overhead kick where their head is offside but their feet aren't it would be given as offside under the current rules.

I'm proposing the reverse which seems to me to be fairer given where the ball is at the time of striking it.

 

[Boozad]

They’d have to be doing some serious hanging if their head was offside in an overhead kick when the ball was played :icon_lol:

 

[Johnny75]

I agree Mark. The offside rule is fine. It's long been the case that if part of your body that can score a goal is offside, then you're offside. What's weird for people is that, with VAR, it's now going to be properly enforced. Lots of goals will be chalked off as a result.

I know I keep using the rugby comparison (and, at times, the comparison isn't like-for-like), but in rugby (union), an offside line is created at every single ruck. Imagine this - you support the defending team. A player on the defending team is ever-so-slightly offside coming off the back of the ruck ready to make the next tackle, none of the on-field officials spot it, and then your player who is charging up to tackle makes an intercept, goes on a mazy run, beats three defenders and scores an amazing try in the corner and the crowd goes wild.

The ref will then check with the TMO (what we call the VAR in rugby) and the TMO will show incontrovertibly that the player who caught the intercept was offside at the ruck and therefore it's a penalty to the other team back at that ruck. Yes, if you support the team that 'scored' the try, you will have celebrated. You will have gone wild for the crazy skills that saw your player beat three defenders. But then you'll see the replay, you'll see on the screens that your player was offside and, whilst you'll be disappointed, you'll know for certain that it was the right call.

I don't have a problem with that. Offside is offside. What I hated yesterday is having no idea whatsoever why the ref was checking Neves' goal.

Isn't the line in rugby from the rearmost foot? So you have a body part as a reference to start with. In football it is anybody part and that's a nonsense in the current climate whereby a shoulder is taken as a point of reference and that doesn't seem right to me.

 

[rather sceptical wolf]

While it's true Traore changed the game and forced Man U to alter it's also true to say he at least partly changed it because Doc was basically AWOL in the 1st half. If he'd been fully fit I don't think we'd have been near as poor nor struggled to move the ball as much.

That and Jota having a bit of a mare. Our style of play is very much about quick counters and of our three most frequent outlets Doc barely crossed the halfway line, Jota gave the ball away every single time and Raul was hardly on fire either. If we'd made more of the opportunities we had that would have translated into us keeping the ball more and probably a dew dangerous offensive set pieces. We actually restricted the opposition to relatively few chances but the switch of play was simply not working

 

[Rui_CostCo]

There was some nice interplay from the front 2, but for whatever reason and pretty much across the board, we seemed at times to be just off best, little things just didn't quite work. Traore being the exception. Having said that we came from behind to salvage a point against Manchester United which in years gone by on a bad night would have meant a resounding defeat.

 

[Monstrum]

Decent result in the end, we got destroyed first half, lindgard had an absolute holwer, had a few really good opportunities he fucked up. Boly made some great last minute stops, especially the beano fuck up at the end of the first. Doc was missing, beano was getting destroyed because he had to cover for him, hes not going to do well against fast skilful attackers. We got very lucky slabhead didnt do anything at corners, he won every header with doc and beano marking him.

Traore was superb second half, complete game changer. It helped he was fresh and made smart runs, regardless if they didnt all pan out, he didnt just stand around. Absolutely unplayable at times, drew three defenders and they still had to foul to stop him. What an absolute beast he is, so many crosses. Very decent defensively too, sure hes not the best tackler or has the best positioning, or really knows what to do, but people forget how strong he is (theres an interview with neves where he says traore is by far the strongest player on the traneam, even stronger than boly) and with that speed he only needs to get in the way and stand there or muscle people off the ball. They cant really get around him.
But rui had an amazing save with the penalty, thats not going to happen every week. We got lucky.
Jota, doc (hes not fit though), beano, coady and neves apart from the goal had a really poor game. Jota lost the ball so much, so many poor passes. Coady had more shockingly bad passes this game than all last season. Neves guilty too. Beano beaten too easily, silly mistakes that almost cost us a goal. Jonny was ok, but not a great game, really should have done better with the header.
Boly and traore were absolutely immense, boly was so fucking good its scary. mom along with rui who really only had the pen to deal with, but what a save.

 

[Kenny]

Destroyed? Behave

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I have only really contributed two lines of a post in this thread as I was knackered and in quite a lot of pain when I got back home.

Worth it though.

It was an intriguing game. The United side is a boatload better than in those two games in the spring when Ole seemed to not have a clue about how to counter us coming back into a game. First half we were pretty average, being brutal. Things weren't coming off, and Doc was obviously a big issue with either injury or illness. United passed the ball around very nicely indeed and had plenty of decent pace but, bar a really excellent move for the opener, they actually created very little.

Second half with the introduction of Traore against Shaw, which just became more and more of an unfair contest as the game went on, we were much much better. The goal was worth the cost of my season ticket, not just the entrance fee of last night. A stunning moment. A real shame about the VAR delay.

The penalty was absolutely correct. Pogba bought it, but Coady hung a leg out. The reaction of our captain told you all you need to know about the correctness of the decision.

It was a decent penalty, although at a perfect height for Rui to make a superb save. My only gripe was about the two fucknuts in front of me who clearly thought I would like to see that piece of action through the screen of their cunting mobile phones. Fuck off with that shite.

All in all, a good point.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Plus - Bennett's yellow card was Breen reborn. Hilarious.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

What you be described as being unfair is exactly the reverse of the rule now. If a forward heads the ball from ibehind a defender but their foot is in front they're offside. Or an overhead kick where their head is offside but their feet aren't it would be given as offside under the current rules.

I'm proposing the reverse which seems to me to be fairer given where the ball is at the time of striking it.

It balances out in the current ruling though, one stray limb from either party can be punished equally either way but in your scenario there is bias towards the attacker.

In the situation I described earlier the lofted cross headed in could result in a legitimate goal whereas a low cross converted with a foot would be offside. Seems ridiculous that two different finishes could give different outcomes from the player and ball starting in identical places. At least with the current ruling it's any body part astray that gets punished so the delivery becomes irrelevant, whichever party keeps their discipline gets the benefit regardless of how the ball is played in.

 

[Parkins left foot]

Plus - Bennett's yellow card was Breen reborn. Hilarious.

Going to change the song now to 'we all dream of a team of Ryan Bennett's' - if I've got no cover then you are going down here!

 

[Johnny75]

It balances out in the current ruling though, one stray limb from either party can be punished equally either way but in your scenario there is bias towards the attacker.

In the situation I described earlier the lofted cross headed in could result in a legitimate goal whereas a low cross converted with a foot would be offside. Seems ridiculous that two different finishes could give different outcomes from the player and ball starting in identical places. At least with the current ruling it's any body part astray that gets punished so the delivery becomes irrelevant, whichever party keeps their discipline gets the benefit regardless of how the ball is played in.

I disagree but that's not unusual.