LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Shot or corner
[Albion] Premier League 19-21/10/24
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
jordanseagull
Well-known member
- Feb 11, 2009
- 4,151
He wasn’t offside when backing into/jostling with the keeper. He was only offside once it left Stones’ head.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,278
He backs into him while the ball is in the air, the keeper pushes him away and is therefore in no position to save the header. Foul play for me. Not hat I care either way.
Mike Small
Well-known member
- Dec 26, 2008
- 2,993
Think Wolves are unlucky to a point there. Silva preoccupies Sa stopping Sa from being ready for a header at goal.
That said, Wolves player went down with a bang to the head just before that corner. he should have stayed for a few more moments (not too long for concussion) but help them get set. Sa should have fallen over when Silva nudged into him. He would have been forced to give a foul or VAR would have done.
It could go two ways next week V us. We score and they capitulate or they get something their performances V bigger teams deserve (Liverpool, City etc). I'm hopeful of the former.
brighton_tom
Well-known member
- Jul 23, 2008
- 5,525
I think you've got to allow that goal. Yes Silva nudges the goalkeeper but its only a soft nudge, and isnt offside at that point seeing as the Stones header hasnt been made yet. Once Stones heads the ball Silva is well away from the keeper, basically on his knees. & if you're disallowing the goal because the goalkeeper was impeded, and so just giving a freekick for a foul, then that would be incredibly soft. Almost every corner would result in a freekick because of a foul on the keeper if we're saying thats the requirement.
Spot on decision. 100% no foul. 100% he's not offside when the header is made. Should the referee make the final decision - yes so he was correct to be sent to the screen.
And I would have LOVED for that to be ruled out but it would have been wrong in spirit and law.
Plus it makes Arsenal fans foam at the mouth which is an added bonus.
And I would have LOVED for that to be ruled out but it would have been wrong in spirit and law.
Plus it makes Arsenal fans foam at the mouth which is an added bonus.
PascalGroß Tips
Well-known member
- Jan 29, 2024
- 614
Exactly. There’s a reason that Silva has backed into the keeper. That extra split second that Sa needed to try and reset himself for the save after the nudge was crucial. Silva ‘cleverly’ gets out of the way to make it look as though he’s not interfering. Even Sturridge - who admitted that used to be his job - said it impacted Sa’s ability to make the save.
Removed because cba
Mike Small
Well-known member
- Dec 26, 2008
- 2,993
He looked gutted to be called over to the screen. Minutes before he didn't give Wolves a foul when it looked like it should have.
London Irish
Well-known member
He did but it didn’t affect his ability to stop the shot - the interference has to be tangible not theoretical. If you scrap that as a goal, you might as well go back to the old no exceptions offside rule, which I know a lot of people want for simplicity’s sake to stop arguments like this. But I think it worked well today
Shot.
When the corner is taken, he's not offside.
When he's making contact with the keeper, he's not offside.
When the shot is made, he becomes in an offside position, but he's no longer interfering with play.
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Smatterface on the radio has done a Starmer and flip flopped and now thinks it was a goal 
LamieRobertson
Not awoke
Note I’m just relaying stuff I can hear on the radio ..I’ve not seen the incident
London Irish
Well-known member
Unfortunately I think this is an example of pundit controversy creation. They always seem bound to disagree with whatever decision is made to make it easier to do their job and fill air time. If they just said yeh ref got it right, they then might have to actually think of something interesting to say next about the game
METALMICKY
Well-known member
- Jan 30, 2004
- 6,853
OK let's move on.
Who's hoping that sulky Sanchez makes a huge mistake in the next game?
Who's hoping that sulky Sanchez makes a huge mistake in the next game?
Absolutely this!
Smatterface on the radio has done a Starmer and flip flopped and now thinks it was a goal
He reads my posts too
- Feb 22, 2014
- 2,835
Not sure about that. The linesman flagged offside so goes to VAR
Milano
Well-known member
It used to be that you couldn't touch the keeper in the 6 yard box, this was changed in 2006 as a way to try to stop numerous 'soft' free kicks.
I'd like to see this rule reintroduced, however I'd like the keeper to be treated like any other player outside the 6 yard box. This would mean the keeper can be 'challenged' outside the 6 yard box but takes away the ambiguity of the current situation.
Today Silva clearly stops the keeper coming for that cross when he was offside; the VAR bottled it, he could have just told the ref it was a foul. I'd be fuming if I was Gary O'Neill.
I'd like to see this rule reintroduced, however I'd like the keeper to be treated like any other player outside the 6 yard box. This would mean the keeper can be 'challenged' outside the 6 yard box but takes away the ambiguity of the current situation.
Today Silva clearly stops the keeper coming for that cross when he was offside; the VAR bottled it, he could have just told the ref it was a foul. I'd be fuming if I was Gary O'Neill.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
You should trust the evidence you're accustomed to. Atwell is hopeless, and got this wrong. Kavanagh is one of our best refs and did what refs so rarely do: ignore the ref on VAR.
The only thing that it should be ruled out for is for Bernardo backing in on Sa. The contact was minimal, it happened before Stones' header, and you get that kind of contact for just about every corner.