But he was in an offside position and he made an ‘obvious action’ (to duck). If he hadn’t the ball would have hit him. Now I have no idea if that really is the rule , but it sounds plausible enough.
1 Like
Players are perfectly entitled to make no play for the ball if they are in an offside position.
1 Like
It’s bullshit. A simple matter of making up the rules as we go.
If Robbo stand still and the ball hits him, he’s offside. If he ducks under it and it doesn’t hit him, he’s also offside?
What, but if he steps to the side, it’s fine?
2 Likes
Well no , that would be another ‘obvious action’ , wouldn’t it ?
If we’re going to have subjective rules, then those enforcing them have to be capable of at least some degree of subjectivity.
Kavanagh lives six miles from the Etihad and claims to support a small non league club that no-one has ever seen him at. Michael Oliver and the two assistants yesterday were part of a side hustle involving the owners of City paying them huge amounts of money to officiate friendly games in the UAE.
These men should be nowhere near football matches that involve Manchester City or it’s rivals.
13 Likes
Like Silva vs Wolves?
Its the inconsistency that’s the detail.
1 Like
If it’s offside if a player touches the ball and also offside if he doesn’t, then why are we drawing a distinction between the two?
1 Like
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
- challenging an opponent for the ball or
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Which one of these applied to Robbo?
1 Like
The ‘obvious action’ one was used, but it seems pretty obvious to me that is really about blocking or holding in order to prevent a defender getting to the ball.
It’s as clear a case of post hoc rationale that you are ever likely to see.
4 Likes
The distinction is important because you need to be able to account for a goalie being fooled by the movement into thinking the shot hes going to need to save hasnt been taken yet and so delaying his effort to get to the original cross/shot. Basically you cannot do anything that approximates a dummy to confuse a keeper’s decision making. That is why the Stones/Silva goal against Wolves last year was allowed because his movement in front of the keeper was unambiguously an attempt to get out of the way and clear space for the goalie and so not penalized.
It just isn’t a credible explanation to look at what Robbo did and think that bit of the rule applies to him.
Yet again this is a case of them having a clear use case in their heads they need to account for in the rules, writing that rule poorly in a way that makes the connection to the original intent difficult to sustain, and then refs applying it in a way that increasingly diverges from the initial intent.
1 Like
I found the PGMOL statement from the incident in the Wolves v City game.
The VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn’t in the line of vision and had no impact on the goalkeeper and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and a goal was awarded.
2 Likes
Michael Oliver - “hold my beer”
And he was involved in that decision too I believe.
1 Like
Let’s put it to bed Oliver is not the best ref nor is he the best of a bad lot. He’s just bad.
I actually don’t mind some such as Pawson, I am sure he has an excel spreadsheet full of bad decisions for us but generally I feel he is refeering the game. I didn’t see that from Kav or from Oliver.
3 Likes
The entire refereeing matrix, VAR and what’s come out of it is a complete debacle. I’ve no faith in it delivering fairness, and in truth, we’ve all been conditioned to expect this. Now at every perceived ‘goal’, there’s then a lull, just to see if ‘computer says no’. Its taken the joy and immediacy from the game, but what’s worse is asking us to accept obvious injustices because its been through a process. The very same process that was implemented to increase fairness. Its almost neo-Orwellian piss taking.
9 Likes
I think my favourite VAR facepalm of this season was the penalty situation against Real Madrid, a situation with three possible outcomes -corner, penalty or free kick. We end up VARing ourselves into an outcome that literally can’t flow as a natural consequence from the incident.
There was a similar one in a City Arsenal a while ago, where the ball hits an Arsenal defender and goes behind. The Ref gives a pen for handball, VAR step and say it isn’t a pen, so Arsenal end up with the ball despite everyone being able to see that it literally can’t be that. The ref knows. VAR know, but the protocols must be obeyed.
It’s absolutely batshit. As always the idea of a video assistant is a really good one, but the implementation is absolutely horrible.
3 Likes
I did post an answer about this but you must have missed it, which I saw from the BBC post match analysis. it explained the chain of causation you are using was broken by the decision to have a penalty VAR, and then after that it can only ever be, penalty or goal kick.
I understand the rationale and how the ptotocols work.
I think it’s mad that we’ve protocol’d ourselves into a situation where we have outcomes on the pitch that literally can’t flow naturally from the incident.
In both those situations there should be scope to go back to the outcome had the referee got the decision ‘correct’ which would have been a corner.
In the Madrid one I think they created a dangerous chance from being given the ball back? Can you imagine the fume if they’d scored?
1 Like
I actually have some sympathy with refs. The law makers have completely lost their way, have over complicated everything, brought in chasms of interpretation and basically stripped on field officials of their authority.
They also seem unwilling to properly review performances and hold officials to account for incorrect decision making.
We’re watching football in a world where the same action can be interpreted and judged in polar opposite ways and both be considered “correct” based on the interpretation of the law. Then you bring VAR in and their interpretation and recommendation is dependent on what decision the ref gave on the field.
There should be no way our goal is disallowed yesterday based on the fact City’s against Wolves last year stood. And yet you can have a scenario where VAR will come to two different conclusions depending on what the ref has called originally. But the ref has a split second to make a call and probably has zero recollection of what they or any other ref has done faced with a similar decision last time.
It leads to a ridiculous outcome where one goal stands and the other is ruled out and VAR has zero consistency in it’s role in order to reach the same conclusion. There should not be a set of laws or applications of those as well as the role of VAR where the two outcomes are not the same.
2 Likes
There more frustrating example was a Chelsea game the other week, I think Bournemouth where they conceded a goal in a similar circumstance that was allowed to stand. The argument there was the Bournemouth player in an offside position was close enough to the Chelsea defender that he was not blocking the goalie’s vision to any greater degree than the defender already was, so the goal was allowed to stand 
As for the Real pen…you cannot give a corner if the game has stopped before the ball goes out. That is why that part of the rule has been created. But that rolls naturally into a protocol of the ref being made to take a beat before blowing his whistle so the play has more chance to naturally resolve in a way that makes a restart more satisfying if the original decision is overturned.
2 Likes
It was the wrong decision but VAR was right to not get involved is the sort of nonsense you get when people are devoted to process not outcomes.
2 Likes