URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       RateTheRef
  HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: General Discussion
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 77858--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: GingerReferee
       Date: April 6, 2024, 6:01 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       It’s a shit rule, as I don’t think Fabianski is ever getting
       there but it’s a good use of var to suggest an onfield review
       and good decision to overturn it
       #Post#: 77860--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: yfc54
       Date: April 6, 2024, 6:05 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Elliot Abrahamsson link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Adam link=top
       >
       > He's right in front of him when the header is made, I don't
       see how you can say that he doesn't block his view. Sorry if I'm
       being harsh on you today, I feel like we might have quite
       different opinions on refereeing overall and that is obviously
       okay :)
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Fabianski clearly watches the ball as it goes past him so his
       view is hardly being blocked. In fact if you watch it again he
       just stands there with his hands up after the ball has crossed
       the line so not exactly a massive appeal.A terrible decision
       #Post#: 77861--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: bruntyboy
       Date: April 6, 2024, 6:12 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Elliot Abrahamsson link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Adam link=topic=5870.msg77826#msg77826
       date=1712424853]
       > [quote author=Pm2 link=topic=5870.msg77821#msg77821
       date=1712422578]
       > What do we think of the offside decision at the end.to me it
       looks like wolves might see another apology off Howard Webb
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       They deserve one. Absolutely scandalous decision, as quoted per
       Gary Oniell. Shambolic. Robinson and Harrington should be
       subjected to at least 1 week off completely. It shows a complete
       lack of understanding of football all around. Moyes says its
       dreadful, ONiell says its woeful, Fabianski says its wrong.
       Therefore it's a horrific call.
       [/quote]
       That's not how it works though, is it? Standing in front of a
       keeper in an offside position like that has for as long as I can
       remember nearly always been called offside, which it also is by
       the letter of the law. I can't even phantom Howard Webb giving
       them anything close to an apology for this one. I do absolutely
       understand that Wolves are frustated, I would likely also be if
       I was in their situation, but we have to look at what the rule
       says and how it's been applied constantly for years, and
       therefore offside is absolutely the correct call in this
       situation
       [/quote]
       I'll give you one which wasn't given. Arsenal v Manchester
       United last season.
       #Post#: 77862--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: Elliot Abrahamsson
       Date: April 6, 2024, 6:21 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: bruntyboy link ---
       >
       > [quote author=Elliot Abrahamsson
       link=topic=5870.msg77828#msg77828 date=1712425475]
       > [quote author=Adam link=topic=5870.msg77826#msg77826
       date=1712424853]
       > [quote author=Pm2 link=topic=5870.msg77821#msg77821
       date=1712422578]
       > What do we think of the offside decision at the end.to me it
       looks like wolves might see another apology off Howard Webb
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       They deserve one. Absolutely scandalous decision, as quoted per
       Gary Oniell. Shambolic. Robinson and Harrington should be
       subjected to at least 1 week off completely. It shows a complete
       lack of understanding of football all around. Moyes says its
       dreadful, ONiell says its woeful, Fabianski says its wrong.
       Therefore it's a horrific call.
       [/quote]
       That's not how it works though, is it? Standing in front of a
       keeper in an offside position like that has for as long as I can
       remember nearly always been called offside, which it also is by
       the letter of the law. I can't even phantom Howard Webb giving
       them anything close to an apology for this one. I do absolutely
       understand that Wolves are frustated, I would likely also be if
       I was in their situation, but we have to look at what the rule
       says and how it's been applied constantly for years, and
       therefore offside is absolutely the correct call in this
       situation
       [/quote]
       I'll give you one which wasn't given. Arsenal v Manchester
       United last season.
       [/quote]
       Which decision are you thinking about? I just watched all the
       goals from these two games, and I can't find anything that is
       even remotely similar to this
       #Post#: 77866--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: Readingfan
       Date: April 7, 2024, 3:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I wasn't fully convinced by Lineker's suggestion on MOTD that a
       challenge system for VAR where each team could make one appeal a
       half and keep it if successful would lead to less frequent use
       of VAR.
       It would obviously depend on the exact process you followed but
       I get the sense Lineker is talking about full-scale on-field
       reviews where the referee looks at the monitor, as I've heard
       him say previously that he wouldn't apply Clear and Obvious. How
       many games do you get now which have at least 4 on-field reviews
       in a match? Lineker suggested that he didn't think anyone would
       have appealed the goal Wolves scored in injury time yesterday
       but if you're West Ham and have an appeal left in the 98th
       minute or whatever it was, then why would you not use it when
       you've just conceded an equaliser? At which point, does the
       process play out any differently?
       I guess it would also increase the consequences of a borderline
       or 'incorrect' call going against you if you've used an appeal.
       If Republic Of Ireland didn't have an appeal left for the 2010
       World Cup play-off when Thierry Henry handballed it then do you
       gain anything?
       It obviously depends what you think the main flaws are with the
       current system and what you think the purpose of the system
       should be but I'm not convinced by the argument it would be used
       less frequently overall with a challenge system.
       #Post#: 77871--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: Claretman
       Date: April 7, 2024, 4:47 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
       >
       > I wasn't fully convinced by Lineker's suggestion on MOTD that
       a challenge system for VAR where each team could make one appeal
       a half and keep it if successful would lead to less frequent use
       of VAR.
       >
       > It would obviously depend on the exact process you followed
       but I get the sense Lineker is talking about full-scale on-field
       reviews where the referee looks at the monitor, as I've heard
       him say previously that he wouldn't apply Clear and Obvious. How
       many games do you get now which have at least 4 on-field reviews
       in a match? Lineker suggested that he didn't think anyone would
       have appealed the goal Wolves scored in injury time yesterday
       but if you're West Ham and have an appeal left in the 98th
       minute or whatever it was, then why would you not use it when
       you've just conceded an equaliser? At which point, does the
       process play out any differently?
       >
       > I guess it would also increase the consequences of a
       borderline or 'incorrect' call going against you if you've used
       an appeal. If Republic Of Ireland didn't have an appeal left for
       the 2010 World Cup play-off when Thierry Henry handballed it
       then do you gain anything?
       >
       > It obviously depends what you think the main flaws are with
       the current system and what you think the purpose of the system
       should be but I'm not convinced by the argument it would be used
       less frequently overall with a challenge system.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Using an appeal system you would get less decisions corrected.
       Var is watching all the time and only intervenes in certain
       circumstances, whereas a few appeals would probably miss
       critical incidents.
       #Post#: 77872--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: Leggy
       Date: April 7, 2024, 5:55 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I have seen this incident once and, for what its worth:
       The player in an offside position is right on front of the
       goal-keeper and is blocking his view of where the ball is going,
       who is going to play it and where they are going to put it.
       That sounds like the classic definition of a player interfering
       with an opponent.
       But, the goal-keeper had no chance of stopping the ball entering
       the goal; given it went in, low-down into the right hand corner
       of the goal.  That sounds like the classic definition of a
       player in an offside position not impacting play.
       But, if the player had not been in that particular offside
       position the goal-keeper would have had a clear view of where
       the ball was going both before and after the goal-scorer headed
       it into the net.  Given that clear view, the goal-keeper may
       have been able to anticipate the header and make an attempt at a
       save.  That puts us back towards the classic definition of a
       player interfering with an opponent.
       This is an excellent example of the desire to define offside
       with 100% clarity ties everyone up in knots and creates more
       problems than it solves.  (ditto handball).
       Having seen it once and typed the above I am still no nearer
       deciding whether the "goal" should have been chalked off or not.
       What I am 100% sure of, though, it that Gary O'Neill's comment
       along the lines of "anyone who thinks that is offside does not
       understand football" is arrogant in the extreme and - if not
       sanctionable - an attempt to demean people that always do their
       best to enhance a game of football by refereeing to the best of
       their ability and without fear or favour.
       Any mistakes made by Premier League referees (and Assistants,
       Fourth Officials and VARs) are outweighed x ten each week by
       players and coaches.  Perhaps if Gary O'Neill and others like
       him concentrated on reducing the errors within their control and
       left the match officials alone (some thing that pretty much
       happens in every other professional sport) the game would be
       better off.
       #Post#: 77873--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham wolves Tony Harrington(tim Robinson var)
   DIR By: carrowman
       Date: April 7, 2024, 6:08 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
       >
       > I wasn't fully convinced by Lineker's suggestion on MOTD that
       a challenge system for VAR where each team could make one appeal
       a half and keep it if successful would lead to less frequent use
       of VAR.
       >
       > It would obviously depend on the exact process you followed
       but I get the sense Lineker is talking about full-scale on-field
       reviews where the referee looks at the monitor, as I've heard
       him say previously that he wouldn't apply Clear and Obvious. How
       many games do you get now which have at least 4 on-field reviews
       in a match? Lineker suggested that he didn't think anyone would
       have appealed the goal Wolves scored in injury time yesterday
       but if you're West Ham and have an appeal left in the 98th
       minute or whatever it was, then why would you not use it when
       you've just conceded an equaliser? At which point, does the
       process play out any differently?
       >
       > I guess it would also increase the consequences of a
       borderline or 'incorrect' call going against you if you've used
       an appeal. If Republic Of Ireland didn't have an appeal left for
       the 2010 World Cup play-off when Thierry Henry handballed it
       then do you gain anything?
       >
       > It obviously depends what you think the main flaws are with
       the current system and what you think the purpose of the system
       should be but I'm not convinced by the argument it would be used
       less frequently overall with a challenge system.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I agree. You see it in cricket, when Jimmy Anderson appeals
       against a plumb lbw, just because they have unused appeals left
       at the end of the innings. Totally pointless and just wastes
       time. Perhaps challenges would then have to be lost for the next
       game for frivolous appeals to prevent this.
       #Post#: 77932--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham vs Wolves Tony - Tony Harrington (VAR - Tim
       Robinson)
   DIR By: adcr85
       Date: April 8, 2024, 8:31 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       My Tuppence on this. Firstly I think the decision overall is
       correct.
       My main point, why is the striker there? Partially one for a
       flick on/rebound, but mostly to put off the keper. He is there
       to distract/confuse the keeper, makes contact with him whilst
       the ball is in the air. Now the fact that at the exact moment
       the ball is headed the striker is not in full/complete line of
       sight of the goalkeeper is a bit immaterial. He's still in
       peripheral vision, he still won't be able to dive forward, he's
       definitely in his personal space, so as I say for me - offside.
       For those in the media/on here who said the goalkeeper could
       move  - he shouldn't have to - he presumably decides not to have
       players on the post so that he can have the goalarea for
       himself, he shouldn't have to move because someone who is
       offside, simple as for me
       #Post#: 77970--------------------------------------------------
       Re: West Ham vs Wolves Tony - Tony Harrington (VAR - Tim
       Robinson)
   DIR By: Claretman
       Date: April 8, 2024, 1:12 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Digressing a little i dont like the actions of my team at free
       kick either, where an attacker stands close by the goalkeeper
       but runs away out of the line of vision of the keeper as the
       kick is being taken. By the fact that he is there and moves as
       the kick is taken,  to me he has impacted on the keeper.
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 3
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page