Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
VAR - are you a fan?
Comments
-
Only my opinion, but no. I stand by my posting.Briston_Addick said:
Was Enzo - the Man City player wearing the Superman cape in the middle of the penalty area, occupying the attention of the Man Utd defender and also in the view of the goalkeeper - interfering with play in your opinion?PeterGage said:My take on the Haaland goal is that if the defender who attempted to block the cross touched the ball, then Haaland was onside. The touch, or lack of it, was inconclusive to me1 -
So ProRef are wrong?PeterGage said:
Only my opinion, but no. I stand by my posting.Briston_Addick said:
Was Enzo - the Man City player wearing the Superman cape in the middle of the penalty area, occupying the attention of the Man Utd defender and also in the view of the goalkeeper - interfering with play in your opinion?PeterGage said:My take on the Haaland goal is that if the defender who attempted to block the cross touched the ball, then Haaland was onside. The touch, or lack of it, was inconclusive to me0 -
Is that your opinion wearing your referee goggles or as a normal football watcher?PeterGage said:
Only my opinion, but no. I stand by my posting.Briston_Addick said:
Was Enzo - the Man City player wearing the Superman cape in the middle of the penalty area, occupying the attention of the Man Utd defender and also in the view of the goalkeeper - interfering with play in your opinion?PeterGage said:My take on the Haaland goal is that if the defender who attempted to block the cross touched the ball, then Haaland was onside. The touch, or lack of it, was inconclusive to me
I fail to see how a player actively trying to make contact with the ball in that position is NOT interfering with play.
It's not like an offside player walking back onside watching the ball sail past him and making no attempt to touch it, often with his hands in a "ignore me, I'm not here" position; Enzo has made a deliberate attempt to score and directly affected the actions of the defender and 'keeper.
If that's not interfering with play then the offside law is a bigger load of crap than I previously thought (and I've been of the opinion that offside has been one of the most ****ed-up laws over the last 20 years ... with handball not far behind).
Is it now time to scrap the offside law?0 -
VAR can’t become what proponents seem to want it to be (100% correct) until the laws are rewritten to be binary with no levels of subjectivity.This won’t / can’t happen.As such, all VAR can do in many cases is to kick the can of subjectivity down the road from the pitch - to some other faceless goons in Stockley Park.0
-
Even the referees governing body (or whatever ProRef are) has said it was the wrong decision, hard to sustain an argument that Fernandez was onside in those circumstances.0
-
Sorry what?PeterGage said:
Only my opinion, but no. I stand by my posting.Briston_Addick said:
Was Enzo - the Man City player wearing the Superman cape in the middle of the penalty area, occupying the attention of the Man Utd defender and also in the view of the goalkeeper - interfering with play in your opinion?PeterGage said:My take on the Haaland goal is that if the defender who attempted to block the cross touched the ball, then Haaland was onside. The touch, or lack of it, was inconclusive to me
How can a guy who is dead centre of the goal, 7 yards out, who dives head first for the ball (and wasn't far off connecting), and causes the United centre back Martinez to try and challenge him..........not be interfering with play?
2 -
This is a really interesting debate. Because it revolves around the accuracy of the referees' and VAR's decisions with regards to Enzo and whether he was "interfering with play".
Lots of people are getting themselves very upset - not just on here - with regards to the decision and have various levels of confidence - from "sure" to "certain" - that Enzo was interfering with play and should therefore be penalised for being offside.
These people are wrong. Enzo did not interfere with play as spelled out in IFAB Law 11.2. You're welcome.0 -
I didn't say that, as you well know. I saw the game on TV and from that came to my opinion. I have seen any pundits viewsStu_of_Kunming said:
So ProRef are wrong?PeterGage said:
Only my opinion, but no. I stand by my posting.Briston_Addick said:
Was Enzo - the Man City player wearing the Superman cape in the middle of the penalty area, occupying the attention of the Man Utd defender and also in the view of the goalkeeper - interfering with play in your opinion?PeterGage said:My take on the Haaland goal is that if the defender who attempted to block the cross touched the ball, then Haaland was onside. The touch, or lack of it, was inconclusive to me0
