Ox’s goal - defender never gets to that header, and if you watch the video the keeper never hesitates sliding across goal towards ox despite Bobby’s attempt, therefore, I believe the correct call was given. Originally, I had thought it should’ve been chalked off, but when I saw the keeper’s movements he never even considers Bobby to have a chance of heading that cross.
Jota actually mishits the ball which is why the change of direction occurs, he tries to lift it over Guaita, and then follow it up to draw the contact. If he had been successful, goal or no goal it is a nailed on pen.
After he mishits he tries to change direction to pursuit the ball. I believe this is why it was given. Ref deemed the mishit to still be in play, which makes this a clear pen again. It looks way worse because of the mishit. Surprised as hell the refs got it right.
Also, hopefully some of those bent c&*ts at citeh were watching that game and let a little bit of doubt start to creep into their minds and stew on it for the next 2 weeks.
The pen is worthy of discussion without a doubt, but our second? Perfectly regular imo. Firmino is offside but doesn’t touch the ball and doesn’t impact the goalie’s ability to react. For me, it’s a perfectly valid goal.
That being said, we still were very lucky to get the three points. We could have easily been slaughtered hadn’t it been for Alli. What a goalie!
Except the offside law says a player is offending when:
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent.
The Palace defender clearly moves towards Firmino as he jumps to head it leaving Ox more space. The pen is debatable but the offside is clear if the law is applied correctly. We got away with that one…but happy to take it.
The Palace goal was offside so. Eduard moves for the pass and thus engages VVD. That impacts on the defenders decision and contributes to the goal. Therefore offside?
The defender is nowhere near ox. A good 7-10 yards away from him. Maybe that does not matter according to the rule, but that ball was unplayable by Bobby.
I know it is awful to argue this back and forth, but we have no footy for 2 weeks so I enjoy the debate.
Personally I wouldn’t give one but I would give Ox’s goal that’s the thing though it’s all judgements.
The refs must have thought he could get it, i with you didn’t think he can’t. It’s less of a fact than some would like believe mind.
The best way when you are surrounded by angry blokes sometimes is just to stick with how you see it, I do have sympathy for refs far more than some on here.
P[quote=“mattyhurst, post:169, topic:2558, full:true”]
Personally I wouldn’t give one but I would give Ox’s goal that’s the thing though it’s all judgements.
The refs must have thought he could get it, i with you didn’t think he can’t. It’s less of a fact than some would like believe mind.
The best way when you are surrounded by angry blokes sometimes is just to stick with how you see it, I do have sympathy for refs far more than some on here.
Coote can sod off mind.
[/quote]
Indeed. That decision last season and the decisions vs Spurs still confuse me.
I just find it bizarre that the refs in the PL are clearly so poor. Consistency as always is way off. VAR was supposed to be a tool to improve accuracy. It has on offside, so much it’s turned into a joke while the rest of the game is more chaotic than ever from an officiating point of view.
Not surprised Firmino wasn’t judged offside seems like they went with the on field decision they did that with one against us last season.
I assume if it had been offside on the pitch it wouldn’t have been overruled.
Also no one in Palace appealed.
Amusing side story is that I spent a season going to Palace and was sat in front of three guys who would whinge about any foul and generally believed a conspiracy I thought of them yesterday but luckily they always left on 85 mins so would have missed it as they missed the Benteke one the season I went which I doubt was and it happened directly in front of me.
I can understand why both decisions have been questioned.
With the goal, I completely understand people saying that the full back only moved to mark Firmino because he thought he was onside. However, I actually believe (i may be wrong) that what the FB is how they are taught to defend crosses like that. You cover your CB and I believe the position Firmino was in had a higher conversion rate than where the ball fell to OX. This is because the control/angle allows for the GK/DF to react - infact Ox was very fortunate to score with the ball passing through a tight gap.
Another point is that when an attacking freekick is awarded, Players will stand in offside positions, this is because they are intent on gaining an advantage by distracting the defending team because the defenders need to worry about the 2nd phase.
So whats the difference, it still affects how a player judges a situation.
VAR with the lines is very good albeit annoying but its largely consistent and (from my understanding) apart from where the lines are drawn has no human interaction. Unfortunately, the is he active/interfering/gaining an advantage is open to interpretation and by different people. Just make it clear cut, remove the debate.
The penalty. Well I can completely understand the City fans questioning it, as its quite clear Ederson is allowed to wipe out Fraser and face no repercussions/penalty, etc. so why cant the Palace keeper.
The keeper was reckless, took out Jota and by saying that I don’t mean tickled him he wiped him out. Whether the ball had gone is irrelevant, if Jota had miss controlled the ball on the touchline and it was going out of play but the defender was already committed and hit him its a foul all day long. Keeper was reckless, no argument.
I agree completely. If you look at Jota’s eyes he almost realises the ball is in play still and actually tries to change his momentum - IMO. Keeper should never of put himself into the equation.
Remember last season against Everton with TAA conceding a penalty against Calvert-Lewin?
The way I saw that one was that Trent went for the block, and was sliding, and then DCL tried jumping over Trent, who by now was still sliding from the initial attempted block.
VAR I think tried to get Trent sent off as well but the ref that day wasn’t having it and gave a pen (scored by the lesser spotted Sigurdsson).
The big difference though is what the offside law states. If a player attempts to play the ball, he is offending. If he doesn’t, he isn’t. The very first line of Law 11 states It is not an offence to be in an offside position. It may distract your opponent but that in itself is not an offence.
Do you remember a goal, scored by Jota last season against West Ham? He was put through by Shaqiri and he ran past Mane who was clearly offside, who stood still to signal he wasn’t interfering and the goal stood. Mane didn’t try to play the ball and the defender wasn’t close. My hammers mate was furious as it was the winning goal. Another example of them being cheated
Yes, I’ve seen a lot of references to the Palace goal being similar to the Ox one from an ‘offside’ perspective but it’s completely different. The eventual goalscorer may well have been offside when the original pass is played but he is not the intended target of the pass and doesn’t make any attempt to play it.
I can’t believe how badly we defended that situation. Virgil is oblivious to the fact he has an attacker running in behind. We are very good at playing offside but it’s developed into an obsession of ours. There’s a time and a place for it but sometimes, particularly when we’re defending a lead, I’d like to see us drop back a few yards. We did against Arsenal last week and just hit them on the break. Seemed to work OK and it was one of our more solid team performances of the season.
After years of defending in a particular way against off-side calls, all defenders now have the added burden of looking two or three passes ahead in the move… Virgil obviously knew the guy in his line of vision was off-side, but like I mentioned… defenders have to consider other options that may develop for the attacking side.
Of course Van Dijk was oblivious, he had his eye on the guy in front of him. He can’t know where everyone is.
The problem wasn’t Van Dijk, once again we had a defensive line out of whack because of Matip’s attempt at clearing the ball, his failure to retreat and no midfielders anywhere near Schlupp. If Van Dijk tries to follow the runner behind him Schlupp has all the time in the world to pick Edouard out and they score anyway.
Van Dijk hedged his bets, and if Schlupp had passed to Edouard we’d have got away with it, but once Schlupp had the ball in that position there was no perfect way for him to defend the situation. With no pressure on the ball Matip should have retreated as quickly as possible or even blocked off Edouard’s run and taken the yellow. His body positioning was poor.
