Jimbo Ram Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, brady1993 said: It's one of the most egregious decisions I can remember going against us for a while. Hate egregious decisions, get on my nut ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
66DegreesNorth Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 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 More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hales300k Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 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 More sharing options...
ck- Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 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 More sharing options...
JfR Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 2 hours ago, RoyMac5 said: Think he must be on the wind-up, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 20 minutes ago, ck- said: I understand what you’re saying, but really vertical movement should have no bearing on defining the impact of horizontal position. 6 Degrees of separation Joziaks goal against Forest and pg 100 of The Kama Sutra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 58 minutes ago, JfR said: Think he must be on the wind-up, surely? Seems clear enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 On 24/10/2020 at 11:26, Jimbo Ram said: Hate egregious decisions, get on my nut ? I would consider hating them if I knew what they were. If you have not tried it do not knock it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamNut Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 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. I’m none the wiser now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
europia Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 On 23/10/2020 at 23:18, Mafiabob said: Yes it should have stood, I have no doubt VAR would have given it. It did however, give the Lino a decision to make once Waggy jumped Yes I think that (Waghorn jumping) was significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsbottom Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 Voted yes. At the point Polish Messi struck the ball, the keeper had full sight of the ball, and was already diving by the time it passed Waghorn. Both the ref and the linesman should die of gonorrhoea and rot in hell... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rampage Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 1 hour ago, RamNut said: I’m none the wiser now. Outstandingly bad but used to be remarkably good. Say no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brammie Steve Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
jono Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Srg Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
jono Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Srg Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
cheron85 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
MuespachRam Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.