DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 87922--------------------------------------------------
Re: A MADLEY - Wolves v Villa
DIR By: Elliot Abrahamsson
Date: February 1, 2025, 3:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: TA_Ref link ---
>
> [quote author=TheThingFromLewes
link=topic=6670.msg87914#msg87914 date=1738437803]
> Donohue is still only a SG2 and I think he has been the
poorest VAR this season with some debatable decisions and
questionable calls made from Shockley Park.
>
> This one is the cherry on the icing on the cake for me.
>
--- End Quote ---
l
Many questionable decisions? I know today’s was a poor one but I
can’t recall many howlers made from Donohue this season. If I’ve
missed some then I’m happy to be corrected
[/quote]
He was the VAR who recommended that Norgaard should've been sent
off for his tackle on Pickford, however I happen to agree with
Howard Webb that it was correct. Other than that, I don't really
recall any controversial incidents in his games. I think he's
been pretty solid so far considering it's his first year
#Post#: 87923--------------------------------------------------
Re: A MADLEY - Wolves v Villa
DIR By: Claretman
Date: February 1, 2025, 3:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Villa ‘goal’ being ruled out one would have
to hear the conversations between AR1, the referee and the var,
i hope it is released on howard webbs micd up prog.
Rogers clearly attempted to interfere with Semedo but didnt have
to as Semedo was looking the other way. Whether Rogers actually
made enough contact on Semedo to impede him i am not sure and
certainly it isnt my opinion that counts.
This is a well rehearsed free kick scenario designed to ensure a
defender is blocked off, but what i would ask if Rogers hadnt
been in an offside position would a free kick have been given
for impeding the defender? On what we see go on in the box at
each set piece in every game i think not.
Did AR1 say to Madley Rogers was in an offside position and did
he impact on Semedo, Madley possibly said yes so AR1 flagged.
Madley possibly relayed the above to Var who saw no reason to
dispute the subjective call.
Rogers clearly fouled near the Wolves penalty area before the
ball was passed upfield to Cunha for him to score no2.
Thought Madley was a little more lenient with Wolves players
than Villa players when cautioning but in general had a very
good game.
My team were very poor and lethargic in the first half and
deserved to be at least 3 down.
Despite the above decisions going against my team, rightly or
wrongly Wolves were fully deserving of the three points today.
#Post#: 87934--------------------------------------------------
Re: A MADLEY - Wolves v Villa
DIR By: Leggy
Date: February 2, 2025, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the Villa goal disallowed for offside, I think
Claretman has summed up things very well.
The well-rehearsed move (kudos to the set-piece coach!) enabled
the Villa player to occupy a place on the field that prevented
the Wolves defender from blocking the cross. It was not a foul
challenge as the Villa player is allowed to stand (or be) there
and any contact was minimal.
But .....
He was in an offside position when the ball was player and - by
being in that position - he impacted the defender's ability to
block the cross. The defender was about a yard short of
blocking the cross. Without the Villa player being there he
would have been able to make that extra yard and would have had
a very good chance of blocking the cross (He may not have been
successful and even if he had blocked the cross the next action
may or may not have resulted in a goal.).
So the player is in an offside position and he has had an impact
on the defender's ability to defend the cross. To me that is an
offside offence and that is what the AR indicated to the referee
and that is what the referee gave.
The VAR can only ask the referee to come to the screen if he
believes that an error has been made. The offside position was
factually correct and - in the eyes of the VAR - the offside
offence was not significantly wrong. That is why there was no
OFR and why - I believe - the correct decision was reached.
#Post#: 87937--------------------------------------------------
Re: A MADLEY - Wolves v Villa
DIR By: ARF
Date: February 2, 2025, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> You do have to ask what Rogers was doing, it was a clearly
rehearsed action to prevent the defender from either moving back
towards his own goal or go out to engage the wide player that
the ball was played to. He made physical contact on him so I
can understand why it was given. What I don't understand is why
there wasn't an on-pitch review, as it was very obviously a
subjective decision.
>
--- End Quote ---
Am I missing something? From watching MotD the offside decision
was given on-field - why would there be an OFR?
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page