The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,399
It’s alright there should be about 86 minutes of added time I’m sure the referee won’t just add on like 5/6 minutes….
Exactly this. Because they decided Konsa was a deflection, VVD is then deemed to be ‘gaining an advantage’. My impression was he wagged his foot at it and so attempted to play the ball, which would have been onside.The reason they sent him to the monitor is because it was VVD offside and they were asking the referee to decide if the interception from Konsa was a clear attempt to play the ball, they deemed it a deflection not an attempt at the ball.
The offside wasn’t from the first ball in, that was onside.
Absolutely, for me that was a deliberate play at the ball and so the offside decision is wrong.Exactly this. Because they decided Konsa was a deflection, VVD is then deemed to be ‘gaining an advantage’. My impression was he wagged his foot at it and so attempted to play the ball, which would have been onside.
What was it for? Inevitable timewasting or generally being a dick?7 yellow cards for Martinez this season
Unbelievable.
Yes - that's why I thought it must be for the first play.Absolutely, for me that was a deliberate play at the ball and so the offside decision is wrong.
Appears to have gone unnoticed on here tho
So did I.Exactly this. Because they decided Konsa was a deflection, VVD is then deemed to be ‘gaining an advantage’. My impression was he wagged his foot at it and so attempted to play the ball, which would have been onside.
Wouldn’t be sent to the monitor if it was, the first offside would be a cut and dry is he/isn’t he.Yes - that's why I thought it must be for the first play.
When offsides get analysed in this level of detail you know that the beautiful game is slowly disappearing up its own arse.So did I.
And logically any defending player is going to try and play the ball when opposition is attacking their half.
It was certainly not a conclusive deflection.