Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Not interfering with play
- Thread starter Mental Lental
- Start date
Graham Potter literally said we were lucky after the game for what it's worth. Not that I give a shite either way as long as we win
- Oct 17, 2008
- 10,709
Yes, I joined here 13 years ago just so I could be a troll on the Brighton fan forum in a game we won. Sterling logic. And you suggest I'm a bit thick?
Is it PotG?
Thrifty non-licker
Lineacre, wear your undercrackers on TV, eat your crisps and cash your cheque.
I care not one f##k.
Thanks for the win.
And as for that bellend Schmeichel, well....
I care not one f##k.
Thanks for the win.
And as for that bellend Schmeichel, well....
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,329
Graham Potter literally said we were lucky after the game for what it's worth. Not that I give a shite either way as long as we win
Lucky that two goals were correctly ruled out for being offside or lucky that despite their relentless pressure, numerous corners and shots on goal they couldn't score another valid goal?
Edit: if its the latter I would say that you make you own luck.
Hampster Gull
New member
- Dec 22, 2010
- 13,462
Obviously all three were correct calls, the pundits are biased and dull.
Icy Gull
Back on the rollercoaster
- Jul 5, 2003
- 72,015
And one of them is an ardent wing nut eared Leicester fanatic
No idea what he meant, you'd have to ask him...
If you are standing in front of the keeper you are stopping him from seeing the ball or moving to it and therefore you are materially affecting the game. The two decisions for offside were correct.
The question is whether Potter, in a moment of crazy genius, analysed that keeper blocking was a tactic and started the zonal line ahead of Barnes to draw the offsides or whether Barns, having fallen foul of the lino once, did the same thing again, which would make him incredibly thick.
Either way, once could be lucky but twice is a pattern.
The question is whether Potter, in a moment of crazy genius, analysed that keeper blocking was a tactic and started the zonal line ahead of Barnes to draw the offsides or whether Barns, having fallen foul of the lino once, did the same thing again, which would make him incredibly thick.
Either way, once could be lucky but twice is a pattern.
Clive Walker
Stand Or Fall
Think he intends to be in that position but onside also. Just a guess.
SweatyMexican
Well-known member
- Mar 31, 2013
- 4,101
Both were given offside BY THE LINESMAN.
VAR is for clear and obvious errors. Judging by the reaction they weren’t clear and obvious, so we’ve got the benefit of the decisions.
I’m sorry, but we can either have exact decisions all the time, or VAR with a ‘light touch’ for the benefit of the game. Make up your mind.
VAR is for clear and obvious errors. Judging by the reaction they weren’t clear and obvious, so we’ve got the benefit of the decisions.
I’m sorry, but we can either have exact decisions all the time, or VAR with a ‘light touch’ for the benefit of the game. Make up your mind.
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,338
Both Leicester players made questionable decisions that put the onus of the officials to make another one.
Maupay clearly fouled the Leicester player, but he broke free and somewhat bizarrely attempted to handle the ball.
( The actual handball came from a header onto his flailing arm after he had missed it )
What was he doing ? Trying to stop play ? Alert the referee to the foul ? Bonkers. You are running the risk of the officials missing the foul, which they did.
As for the offsides, well it's clearly a border-line "interfering/not interfering with play" tactic that Leicester employ. It will work for them sometimes and other times not.
Maupay clearly fouled the Leicester player, but he broke free and somewhat bizarrely attempted to handle the ball.
( The actual handball came from a header onto his flailing arm after he had missed it )
What was he doing ? Trying to stop play ? Alert the referee to the foul ? Bonkers. You are running the risk of the officials missing the foul, which they did.
As for the offsides, well it's clearly a border-line "interfering/not interfering with play" tactic that Leicester employ. It will work for them sometimes and other times not.
I was just about to say this - exactly.
Was it offside? Yes, that’s objective not a judgement call.
Was it interfering? The Lino clearly thought so - and VAR confirmed not a clear and obvious error.
That’s VAR working correctly in my book.
drew
Drew
But you seem to think you're above everyone else. We all know last season we didn't get the rub of the green and today we did. Think Sanchez only had one real save to make. So, whilst they were on top, they didn't create too many chances.
studio150
Well-known member
Bill Shankly - 'If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.'
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Steve Claridge on Sky said Barnes was too close to Sanchez both times.
sant andreu
Active member
- Dec 18, 2011
- 234
The penalty decision could have gone either way – Maupay was doing standard penalty area pulling type things that sometimes do and sometimes don't get punished, and that's why Vestergard's arm was where it was. But that type of holding goes unpunished all the time.
The two offside decisions were a bit 'unfortunate' for Leicester but were clearly correct.
The two offside decisions were a bit 'unfortunate' for Leicester but were clearly correct.
Couldn't care less boohoo Jug ears.
All decisions could have gone a different way they didn't.
All decisions could have gone a different way they didn't.