GWT: EPL - Matchweek 2

[hatterson]

Showing the replay of that offside goal makes it even worse. The studio trying to defend it as "just a deflection" is stupid. In current rules, any deliberate play resets offside, not direct physical control of the ball.

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

 

[Chimaera]

Showing the replay of that offside goal makes it even worse. The studio trying to defend it as "just a deflection" is stupid. In current rules, any deliberate play resets offside, not direct physical control of the ball.

that might be the rule, but you could argue he would not have made that touch if he knew he was offside.

There’s a bit of hard and fast that can’t be applied in this one.

 

[hatterson]

that might be the rule, but you could argue he would not have made that touch if he knew he was offside.

There’s a bit of hard and fast that can’t be applied in this one.

You can absolutely argue that, and that's why from a "fairness" standpoint, I don't like those types of goals to be given, but based on the way the rules are written and have consistently been applied, it's a very clear good goal and VAR should have intervened to let the referee judge the offside offense again.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

That pass from Mitoma was very very clever

 

[Blender]

BHA shreds Wolves to go up 2-0. Mitoma looking brilliant again.

 

[Chimaera]

I don’t know what the superseding ruling is on it. While the playing the ball could make the offside nil, because it’s a goal scoring situation, would the offside have caused that, and therefore been the more important judgment? It’s similar in my mind to an offside player impacting a keeper from making a save. The player might not have intended, but his location led to the deflection.

 

[Blender]

3-0 BHA. Shredding them.

 

[Blender]

4-0 BHA. Wolves in shambles.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Wolves are going down.

 

[Chimaera]

Szoboszlai is the goods

 

[hatterson]

I don’t know what the superseding ruling is on it. While the playing the ball could make the offside nil, because it’s a goal scoring situation, would the offside have caused that, and therefore been the more important judgment? It’s similar in my mind to an offside player impacting a keeper from making a save. The player might not have intended, but his location led to the deflection.

It's long been interpreted under the current rule that interfering with an opponent requires either direct physical interference (i.e., contact), very close proximity (within a yard or so), or in direct line of sight which impacts their action (almost exclusively applied to the keeper, but technically could impact a defender if he's in the goal).

I think it was Salah that scored one last year where he was in a clear offside position and the defender tried to reach a header to intercept a pass to him but only got a tiny piece of it and it then fell to Salah. That was ruled as an intentional play by the defender even though it would be far, far, far more excusable as a "deflection" under the current rule since he was at full stretch trying to reach a header as opposed to being fully in control of a clearance kick and just missing it.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

Bye Alexis

 

[Juve]

Brighton are the best!

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Mac Allister's reaction to the red was hilarious. He definitely was not expecting that.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

That seems obvious to me, foot is high and studs looked up at a glance

 

[Savant]

Mac Allister's reaction to the red was hilarious. He definitely was not expecting that.

Did you think that would be red? I did not?

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Seems harsh

 

[Gecklund]

Studs up clear red. Not getting overturned with the ref that close either.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

4-0 BHA. Wolves in shambles.

I'm starting to get increasingly confident that Spurs win tonight. United barely beat this Wolves team.

 

[hatterson]

It's more a deep orange tackle versus a stonewall red, but there's no way VAR can overturn it when the ref had a very clear view of it.

 

[East Coast Bias]

Incredible the referee will call that red but wouldn’t dare call off that horrible dive.

 

[Savant]

That seems obvious to me, foot is high and studs looked up at a glance

50/50 ball. No one had possession. Bournemouth guy was in the same position.

 

[Spring in Fialta]

Did you think that would be red? I did not?

Not in live time but upon replay, eh, yeah, I can see it.

 

[Wee Baby Seamus]

50/50 ball. No one had possession. Bournemouth guy was in the same position.

50/50 doesn’t mean you can lift your leg that high off the ground and plant it into someone’s calf!

It’s unlucky but Alexis should know better

 

[Chimaera]

It’s a bad challenge. I would not have shown red, but I understand why it was.