| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. 17:24 - Oct 20 with 1778 views | saintmark1976 |
Another day another dollar and once more a referee who favours the big money teams.
I’ve an intense illogical dislike for Wolves but even after reviewing V A R how did Man City’s winning goal stand ? If it’s not offside it’s physical interference with their keeper.
On the other hand was the decision worse than the many given by the total excuse for a referee who officiated our game yesterday ?
These people referee as a profession so how even with the aid of V A R can they be so totally and regularly inept and still remain in their job ?
Perhaps it’s like any other profession. Simply money talking ?
[Post edited 20 Oct 17:31]
|  |
| |  |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 17:29 - Oct 20 with 1731 views | cocklebreath |
I prefer to not think about it as it’s no good for my blood pressure.
If I was a ref I’d be biased towards the underdog but I expect these helmets are secret Liverpool, Man U or Man City fan boys |  |
| |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 18:04 - Oct 20 with 1655 views | Berber |
He did not interfere with the goalkeeper, he was moving away as the shot was made, and he was not unsighting the keeper. There are plenty of precedents to that already this season. I thought the offside decision was harsh and wrong. VAR showed that to be the case. |  |
| |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 19:39 - Oct 20 with 1521 views | Ifonly |
Two big mistakes by players this weekend:
1) Sa should have collapsed backwards when Silva backed into him. Then a free kick would have been given for a foul on the goalkeeper and Wolves would have drawn.
2) Tall Paul should have collapsed to his knees when he felt his shirt being pulled. Then a penalty would have been given and we would probably have gone 3-0 up.
Honesty doesn't pay in football. | | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 20:02 - Oct 20 with 1492 views | grumpy |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 19:39 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
Two big mistakes by players this weekend:
1) Sa should have collapsed backwards when Silva backed into him. Then a free kick would have been given for a foul on the goalkeeper and Wolves would have drawn.
2) Tall Paul should have collapsed to his knees when he felt his shirt being pulled. Then a penalty would have been given and we would probably have gone 3-0 up.
Honesty doesn't pay in football. |
Agree with 2.Would have put us 3-1 up tho. |  | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 20:26 - Oct 20 with 1440 views | kingslandstand1 |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 19:39 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
Two big mistakes by players this weekend:
1) Sa should have collapsed backwards when Silva backed into him. Then a free kick would have been given for a foul on the goalkeeper and Wolves would have drawn.
2) Tall Paul should have collapsed to his knees when he felt his shirt being pulled. Then a penalty would have been given and we would probably have gone 3-0 up.
Honesty doesn't pay in football. |
That was my thought with Tall Paul but then with a bloke that size would have been accused of "buying" the foul! |  | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 20:33 - Oct 20 with 1425 views | Berber |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 19:39 - Oct 20 by Ifonly |
Two big mistakes by players this weekend:
1) Sa should have collapsed backwards when Silva backed into him. Then a free kick would have been given for a foul on the goalkeeper and Wolves would have drawn.
2) Tall Paul should have collapsed to his knees when he felt his shirt being pulled. Then a penalty would have been given and we would probably have gone 3-0 up.
Honesty doesn't pay in football. |
Did Silva back into him? He looked about a foot away, then moved right away. | |
| |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 22:27 - Oct 20 with 1304 views | DorsetIan |
The problem with the Boring FC equaliser was the linesman flagged and VAR overruled him.
It wasn't clearly and obviously a wrong decision because clearly Silva was in an offside position and clearly he was trying to mess with the keeper and did distract him.
The fact that he distracted him maybe a second before the header, does not make the linesman's decision clearly wrong.
And, yes, in our game VAR just unbelievably inconsistent, as ever.
VAR has gone beyond ruining the game. It's ruined the game.
Football without VAR is a million times better than with it. | |
| |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 00:03 - Oct 21 with 1230 views | saintpaz |
i see that as karma a bit...we should have had a pen and not given so wolves can have some bad luck as well, fook em! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 08:53 - Oct 21 with 1120 views | Joiedevivre |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 22:27 - Oct 20 by DorsetIan |
The problem with the Boring FC equaliser was the linesman flagged and VAR overruled him.
It wasn't clearly and obviously a wrong decision because clearly Silva was in an offside position and clearly he was trying to mess with the keeper and did distract him.
The fact that he distracted him maybe a second before the header, does not make the linesman's decision clearly wrong.
And, yes, in our game VAR just unbelievably inconsistent, as ever.
VAR has gone beyond ruining the game. It's ruined the game.
Football without VAR is a million times better than with it. |
How was Silva in an offside position from a corner? He’s out of the way by the time Stones heads the ball, Sa had maximum possible time to react upon Stones’ heading of the ball. Add the fact Silva is tiny compared to Sa (hardly obstructs vision) and barely touches him.
It was a definite goal and the right decision. Though he made some mistakes - the Man City free kick from Lemina shouldn’t have been given - finally a ref has some balls to go to the screen and keep his decision. [Post edited 21 Oct 8:54]
|  | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 09:17 - Oct 21 with 1081 views | Number_58 |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 20:02 - Oct 20 by grumpy |
Agree with 2.Would have put us 3-1 up tho. |
Assuming we scored the penalty. |  | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 09:43 - Oct 21 with 1063 views | DorsetIan |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 08:53 - Oct 21 by Joiedevivre |
How was Silva in an offside position from a corner? He’s out of the way by the time Stones heads the ball, Sa had maximum possible time to react upon Stones’ heading of the ball. Add the fact Silva is tiny compared to Sa (hardly obstructs vision) and barely touches him.
It was a definite goal and the right decision. Though he made some mistakes - the Man City free kick from Lemina shouldn’t have been given - finally a ref has some balls to go to the screen and keep his decision. [Post edited 21 Oct 8:54]
|
He was in an offside position when the header was made and about a second earlier he was messing with the keeper.
And the flag went up, which wasn't clearly and obviously wrong. Had the goal been chalked off, Boring would have been disappointed but couldn't have complained (too much). | |
| |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 16:19 - Oct 21 with 910 views | saint901 |
If the "messing with the keeper" was enough to be foul, then EVERY corner would result in a free kick to the defenders and corners would die out of the game.
Keepers are (in my view) over protected and if you so much as sneeze in their direction it's a free kick.
The controversy could easily be avoided.
Keep the "offside but not interfering" rule if a player is offside outside the box.
In the box, drop the "not interfering" rules. If he's offside, give a free kick. | | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 19:21 - Oct 21 with 839 views | sledger |
is he seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position,yes of course he is otherwise he wouldnt be where he was. | | | |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 22:36 - Oct 21 with 781 views | DorsetIan |
| Wolves today. And so it goes on. First it was Man Utd now it’s City. on 16:19 - Oct 21 by saint901 |
If the "messing with the keeper" was enough to be foul, then EVERY corner would result in a free kick to the defenders and corners would die out of the game.
Keepers are (in my view) over protected and if you so much as sneeze in their direction it's a free kick.
The controversy could easily be avoided.
Keep the "offside but not interfering" rule if a player is offside outside the box.
In the box, drop the "not interfering" rules. If he's offside, give a free kick. |
'messing with' doesn't have to equate to a foul in this context. And I nearly typed 'interfering with' the keeper but that has other connotations.
The trouble with your proposed solution, pragmatic though it is, is that it would mean that goals would be chalked off because of offside players who were nowhere near the play. And ffs VAR is getting enough kicks out of ruling out good gaols as it is.
In this case, I'd say if the linesman flags it's not a goal and if he doesn't it is. I know it's a crazy idea and God knows how it would work in practice...oh wait... | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
