Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Burnley VAR
- Thread starter amexer
- Start date
Wood was also offside when the corner was taken ....
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Wood can’t be offside from a corner kick, only when the ball goes to phase 2, which he wasn’t.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Those two pictures show that Stephens couldn't possibly have pushed Rodriguez. His arms were well away from him.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,121
In fairness to the ref, he pretty much wasn't giving much for any 50/50s all over the pitch.
So should have been no surprise that he would expect more intent to give a penalty.
Unusually decent performance from him, I thought.
So should have been no surprise that he would expect more intent to give a penalty.
Unusually decent performance from him, I thought.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
Think we got a bit lucky with the penalty incident but the other decisions were spot on.
You can't have players impeding the goalie on the goal line in a blatant offside position no matter how far away the keeper is from the ball, it would have been a farce to let that stand. And it's almost impossible to prove whether the ball crossed the line without a camera directly in line with it and then if we checked everyone of those, a game would go on forever, that had to stand.
You can't have players impeding the goalie on the goal line in a blatant offside position no matter how far away the keeper is from the ball, it would have been a farce to let that stand. And it's almost impossible to prove whether the ball crossed the line without a camera directly in line with it and then if we checked everyone of those, a game would go on forever, that had to stand.
highflyer
Well-known member
- Jan 21, 2016
- 2,553
I was surprised the Stephens penalty wasn't given - I'd guess that would be given as a pen (and then backed by VAR) 2 out of 3 times. Think we were lucky.
Once it was given though, I was not surprised that VAR backed the ref. It wasn't a clear and obvious enough error to be overturned.
Once it was given though, I was not surprised that VAR backed the ref. It wasn't a clear and obvious enough error to be overturned.
Where did you buy those BHA glasses from - _must get myself a pair
The Connolly goal was definately a goal. No way had the ball gone out
Stephens incident was a stone wall penalty
The controversial incident was the Burnley second goal.. By the letter of the law - It was correctly knocked off. He blocked the keeper off so definately interfering with play. The rules are the rules. Keeper was never getting there anyhow but that really isn't the point.
Raging if given against you but pleased if it goes for you
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 12,121
I'm often amazed at the amount of times, refs and linesmen give throw ins.
However whole of the line and whole of the ball is very difficult to judge.
However it is not as amazing as the amount of fans around me in the NW corner, who cannot see that a stationary ball (for an opposition corner) is in fact not fully outside the quadrant,
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Sky showed the penalty incident several times whilst waiting for the VAR decision. It also showed a couple of different angles, so if my BHA glasses are biased then blame Sky for their camera angles.
Thats the default answer.
I am just waiting for Donald Trump to say it in his next Press Conference
Nixonator
Well-known member
Penalty looked a stonewall in real time. Replays more accurately show no chance. Right call.
Was never off the pitch for our second. Right call.
Disallowed goal was harsh becaused unimpeded, Ryan would still have had no chance. Still, blame their player for expecting us to have someone on the post. Right call.
I don't see how we were fortunate at all to be honest, I think we're just all so desperate for that game to finally come where we think we've got away with one.
Was never off the pitch for our second. Right call.
Disallowed goal was harsh becaused unimpeded, Ryan would still have had no chance. Still, blame their player for expecting us to have someone on the post. Right call.
I don't see how we were fortunate at all to be honest, I think we're just all so desperate for that game to finally come where we think we've got away with one.
Thompson720
Well-known member
Can see why they disallowed it, but also empathise and be fuming if it happened to us. Guess we had one chalked off very early in the season (Burn off?) for similar.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Those pictures also show Mr Moss had a perfect view of it.
blockhseagull
Well-known member
Don’t see the problem with the disallowed goal to be honest.
It’s offside ... end of
He was in an offside position that had a direct impact on the goalkeeper. Not a harsh decision, not a tight decision and certainly not unlucky. The debate about whether Ryan would have got to it is completely irrelevant the fact is that he was in an offside position and directly effecting the movement of the goalkeeper.
It’s offside ... end of
He was in an offside position that had a direct impact on the goalkeeper. Not a harsh decision, not a tight decision and certainly not unlucky. The debate about whether Ryan would have got to it is completely irrelevant the fact is that he was in an offside position and directly effecting the movement of the goalkeeper.
Kuipers Supporters Club
Well-known member
No such offence anymore ...
It never ceases to amaze me how many people who regularly watch football and consider themselves supporters of the game lack knowledge about the basic laws of the game. you can not be offside by any means of restarting the game after it has left the field of play, goal kick, throw in or corner. It's the same when people question a penalty taker hits the post and is first to the ball and touches it again, he/she has touched the ball twice, indirect free kick to the opposition.