darrenm Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Yeah it's very close. I've seen these chalked off for a stud or a sleeve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KentVillan Posted January 23, 2021 Author Share Posted January 23, 2021 (edited) As I tried to say in the post. It's not about whether he was or wasn't offside. It's that they clearly didn't do the "laser line" millimetre analysis that usually pops up when there's a tight offside call. That's separate from whether they "check" a replay quickly for infringements. And according to the Sky broadcast team, that was because of Schar's touch. Forget about whether you think Watkins was behind the ball as it was played - he might have been, but that's irrelevant. It wasn't checked in the same way it normally would be. The referees are rewriting rules to cover their own arses. Edited January 23, 2021 by KentVillan 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 I have absolutely no idea what the offside rule is anymore. What i do know for definite is that the offside rules can change match by match and can even change during a match, depending on who is playing. I am 100% certain of that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danishlad Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 13 minutes ago, darrenm said: Yeah it's very close. I've seen these chalked off for a stud or a sleeve. definitely behind the ball there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 I’m confused. On motd they are saying he was offside when the cross was put in but he is behind the ball. What’s the rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Dion Dublin, whilst staring at a graphic that showed the ball being played BACK to Watkins, saying he was offside when the ball was played. NO! NO! NO! You are not offside if you are behind the f***** ball! The rest of it is irrelevant. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 7 minutes ago, KentVillan said: As I tried to say in the post. It's not about whether he was or wasn't offside. It's that they clearly didn't do the "laser line" millimetre analysis that usually pops up when there's a tight offside call. That's separate from whether they "check" a replay quickly for infringements. And according to the Sky broadcast team, that was because of Schar's touch. Forget about whether you think Watkins was behind the ball as it was played - he might have been, but that's irrelevant. It wasn't checked in the same way it normally would be. The referees are rewriting rules to cover their own arses. I can't believe Sky would say something that stupid, if they did that's hilarious. Watkins was onside because he was behind the ball, nothing to do with the defenders touch. The real talking about that goal is what was the Newcastle goalie doing when he came out? Did he forget he had hands? Also, when he jumps he gets like half a foot off the ground. All around awful attempt at a save there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ender4 Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 33 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said: Exactly. And given the lengths the commentators and pundits went to in order to say that Schar’s touch played Watkins onside regardless of his position, I think we can take it that the Premier League and its broadcasters are all now in lockstep over the new interpretation. A brand new, revolutionary interpretation of a long-established law, halfway through a season, totally out of line with other European leagues and without any announcement, discussion, or even change to the written laws. Unprecedented (and insane). Yep agree. and watch them change the law back again in a few games time when its a critical goal in a way that benefits either Mancs or Pool. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, One For The Road said: Dion Dublin, whilst staring at a graphic that showed the ball being played BACK to Watkins, saying he was offside when the ball was played. NO! NO! NO! You are not offside if you are behind the f***** ball! The rest of it is irrelevant. I'm in the states but their is no way actual footballers are saying Watkins is offside on the initial touch. Have they completely forgotten one of the simplest parts of the offside law. Next thing we know they will be calling people offside on throw ins or goal kicks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, One For The Road said: Dion Dublin, whilst staring at a graphic that showed the ball being played BACK to Watkins, saying he was offside when the ball was played. NO! NO! NO! You are not offside if you are behind the f***** ball! The rest of it is irrelevant. Is he behind the ball though? It looks ridiculously close. I’ve seen previous Watkins goals that look more onside than that chalked off with the lines. If that’s being checked for offside then I’d expect the lines to be being drawn as we’ve seen in every other example of this sort of decision. To me it looks like VAR have checked it, seen the touch by the defender and not bothered with the line drawing exercise as it’s irrelevant now that we’ve completely changed the offside rule. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post KentVillan Posted January 23, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2021 A lot of issues with reading comprehension here. If VAR decided Watkins was onside because the ball was played back, then they would have got their laser lines out to check it - 100%. It would have been on the screen and they would have compared the position of the ball, with the position of his body. That's what we're all used to seeing. They don't eyeball that. The reason VAR haven't done that is Schar's touch. So just for clarity: YES, Watkins is probably onside because he was behind the ball But NO that isn't why VAR gave it - they gave it because they think Schar's touch renders Watkins' position irrelevant 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Danishlad said: definitely behind the ball there Before VAR I'd agree. It's level. Never been offside. These days ones that are level tend to be called offside with a line that seems to defy physics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said: I’m confused. On motd they are saying he was offside when the cross was put in but he is behind the ball. What’s the rule? If he's behind the ball then he's onside If they've ruled him onside because of schars touch then they are wrong and can get in the **** sea before they completely ruin the game Feel like sky et al are trying to make out like this somehow balances Wednesdays decision, it doesn't, Wednesday was still a terrible decision, if they rule that this was onside because of schars touch then this one is even worse 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 We were robbed last week and given the perfectly correct decision this week. We are still owed a shit load of bad decisions in our favour. This wasn't one of them. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vive_La_Villa Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, villa4europe said: If he's behind the ball then he's onside If they've ruled him onside because of schars touch then they are wrong and can get in the **** sea before they completely ruin the game Feel like sky et al are trying to make out like this somehow balances Wednesdays decision, it doesn't, Wednesday was still a terrible decision, if they rule that this was onside because of schars touch then this one is even worse They drew the line but totally ignored where the ball was. It wouldn’t even surprise me if Schar hadn’t touched it they gave it offside. Pundits are shocking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, One For The Road said: We were robbed last week and given the perfectly correct decision this week. We are still owed a shit load of bad decisions in our favour. This wasn't one of them. Haven't you heard? Last season VAR ruled out a golden goal winner that would have relegated us We will forever be balancing that wrong doing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 Just now, Vive_La_Villa said: They drew the line but totally ignored where the ball was. It wouldn’t even surprise me if Schar hadn’t touched it they gave it offside. Pundits are shocking. My first thought was they were going to get the lines out and disallow it, didn't see the line, it should come from the ball, it'll be really tight, maybe a knee hair off Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
One For The Road Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: Haven't you heard? Last season VAR ruled out a golden goal winner that would have relegated us We will forever be balancing that wrong doing Yes thats right. The one in the dying moments of the final game of the season, from which there couldn't possibly be any comeback? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Talldarkandransome Posted January 23, 2021 Share Posted January 23, 2021 5 minutes ago, One For The Road said: Dion Dublin, whilst staring at a graphic that showed the ball being played BACK to Watkins, saying he was offside when the ball was played. NO! NO! NO! You are not offside if you are behind the f***** ball! The rest of it is irrelevant. This is what i thought originally, hes onside as behind the ball when played. But Dion said he was offside when ball crossed but was then onside because the defender touched the ball. Regardless of which one is correct, how the hell are coaches meant to tell defenders not to touch the ball when a cross comes in just in case the attacker was offside. Defenders always call for offside regardless of where the attacker is. And if I were a coach and the defenders kept leaving the ball just in case, I would be going mad at them. TOTALLY BONKERS RULE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post KentVillan Posted January 23, 2021 Author Popular Post Share Posted January 23, 2021 4 minutes ago, One For The Road said: We were robbed last week and given the perfectly correct decision this week. We are still owed a shit load of bad decisions in our favour. This wasn't one of them. This thread isn't about whether the goal should have stood - most of us think it probably should have stood, because Watkins was probably just behind the ball as Targett played it in. The point is that the VAR cabal and Sky are trying to convince everyone that Schar's touch means Watkins position was irrelevant. Watkins was clearly interfering with play as Schar touched the ball, so they should have checked for offside. 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts