Jump to content

Jozwiak Disallowed Goal


David

Jozwiak Disallowed Goal  

296 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 124
  • Created
  • Last Reply
28 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

It would have looked to the linesman that Waggers jumped over the ball and was as a result directly in line with the shot and in the eyeline of their keeper, in an offside position. The jump gave the linesman the wrong  impression, that was the point I was making ?

shouldn't have been the linesman call, In hindsight, the ref should be in a position to see if Waggy is obstructing the line of sight for the keeper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/10/2020 at 11:23, brady1993 said:

It's one of the most egregious decisions  I can remember going against us for a while.

Watched it in The Merlin on Friday , went bat**** crazy when Jozwiak scored , but when Stevie Wonder disallowed it , the words "egregious decision" were uttered loud and long ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 24/10/2020 at 10:01, Jimbo Ram said:

I don’t think the Forest goal was offside and I don’t think their player got in the eyeline of Marshall. It was the push on Curtis that should have resulted in the goal being disallowed. I can see why Waghorn was given offside, if he hadn’t of jumped we would probably have got away with it...

I understand what you’re saying, but really vertical movement should have no bearing on defining the impact of horizontal position. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Rampage said:

I would consider hating them if I knew what they were. If you have not tried it do not knock it.

1CEE4E57-88EC-4813-B8A1-25ACE7627491.thumb.jpeg.297cd64a964f412b2f25547d92b03c63.jpeg

 

I’m none the wiser now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On reflection I have to say that if my nuisance value in an offside position meant that I had to leap 30 cm in the air to allow the passage of a goal-bound ball then I would be adjudged to have interfered with play.

I am happier with this decision than VAR giving an offside decision because the tab on the back of a player’s boot showed nearest the opposing goal (as I seem to recall happened to us last season.

Referee or volcanic tightrope walker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/10/2020 at 22:18, leamram said:

Derby goal no...waghorn in an offside position and does enough to distract the keeper (even though he wouldn't of got near it)

I'd of been furious if it was the other way round and given.

 

I agree, but I still voted that it should have stood ? cos it was a corker 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, jono said:

I agree, but I still voted that it should have stood ? cos it was a corker 

It should have stood because it should have stood. The linesman gave it because he hasn't got the depth of field from where he's stood, Waghorn does look like he's interfering (no more than McKenna would have done for their goal, may I add), the referee should have given it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Srg said:

It should have stood because it should have stood. The linesman gave it because he hasn't got the depth of field from where he's stood, Waghorn does look like he's interfering (no more than McKenna would have done for their goal, may I add), the referee should have given it.

It’s a reasonable argument - but what would your opinion have been if it was exactly the same circumstances but Florists goal not ours ? I think that’s the point. We would have been nuclear .. “he was miles off” , “lurking for a re bound” , “interfering with play, don’t care if the keeper could see it” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, jono said:

It’s a reasonable argument - but what would your opinion have been if it was exactly the same circumstances but Florists goal not ours ? I think that’s the point. We would have been nuclear .. “he was miles off” , “lurking for a re bound” , “interfering with play, don’t care if the keeper could see it” 

No I wouldn't. The keeper could see it. I'd have reacted like the Forest players did, non of whom even appealled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Srg said:

It should have stood because it should have stood. The linesman gave it because he hasn't got the depth of field from where he's stood, Waghorn does look like he's interfering (no more than McKenna would have done for their goal, may I add), the referee should have given it.

I think it should have stood

But I also think the ref made the right call

I think by the rules of the game as they stand it was definitely an offside and he was close enough to the ball to be distracting/offputting to the GK in a way which the rule is supposed to 'prevent'

However - I think the rule is stupid - I get that they're trying to stop people standing in front of the keeper at freekicks etc but there must be a way to write it that allows for situations like this

I don't understand why GKs get these kinds of extra 'protections' which other players don't - When they're jumping or sticking arms/heads in dangerous places yes - But "not getting a clear view" is nonsense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It WAS offside, I would suggest that if you are on the pitch and NOT interfering with play then you shouldn’t be on the pitch....!!
 

every single person who is moaning about the decision on here would be fuming if that goal had been scored against us a given as ok  

for what it’s worth I think their goal was offside too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...