Jamie Carragher continues his pinball analysis. Homework for Sky....."could we do better? Discuss."
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Albion] Premier League 28 - 30/9
- Thread starter Bozza
- Start date
Yes, but that doesn't include offside as a reviewable decision itself. That just says to not blow the whistle (i.e. make an offside call) if it's a tight decision, and that the ref should wait until the next break in play. Sometimes that break in play will be a "goal" and the "goal" will be reviewed (and include looking at the offside in the build up).
Essentially it is there for situations like the Bournemouth incident and the one tonight for the Arsenal goal - tight decisions where a goal-scoring opportunity is imminent - the ref is instructed to not award offside, to wait until the "goal" that will be reviewed because they all are. The offside isn't given until the "goal" has been reviewed - because if they do give the offside they can't review it and a perfectly fine goal could be ruled out with no recourse to correct the mistake.
Sometimes a goal won't result from that section of play, then it comes down to the ref and their assistant - if the assistant has flagged and the goal isn't coming he can award the offside. It doesn't get reviewed it stands, just like every non-tight offside decision, not a massive deal if it's wrong as the goal scoring opportunity has gone. If the assistant hasn't flagged, and the goal isn't coming, they play on - not a big deal because there was no unfair advantage because there was no goal.
This is borne out in the events of tonight's match - Ole was complaining the the ref had blown the whistle - because that would mean play was dead and the goal should not stand, and sky replayed the footage to highlight that the ref didn't blow until the goal was scored.
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,319
I was in that exact corner funnily enough
front row right by the tunnel. Don’t ask. But yeh game of low quality!
When asked 'what if Utd come in for Brendan Rodgers?'
The footballing God that is Barry Glendenning replied:-
'why would he go, Leicester have won the league more recently than Utd and are more likely to win another sooner'. Ouchy McOuchface.
Weststander
Well-known member
When asked 'what if Utd come in for Brendan Rodgers?'
The footballing God that is Barry Glendenning replied:-
'why would he go, Leicester have won the league more recently than Utd and are more likely to win another sooner'. Ouchy McOuchface.
Leicester seem a straight forward club without internal politics (other than when shop steward Vardy sees managers out of the door) and without an entitled fanbase.
A great job for a good manager/coach.
Re Newcastle someone else said:-
'I saw them last week and if Brighton had Vardy they would have won 5-0 as well'.
Weststander
Well-known member
Plus Pereira, Ndidi, Chilwell and Tielemans .... what a team we’d have. Two brilliant fullbacks who can defend with pace, creativity and pace in CM.
Dreaming.
I think the point was we were only 1 decent striker away from handing out a pasting
Not exactly news to us.
Weststander
Well-known member
IMHO we could do with instinctive creators, with pace to break. Trossard ticks those boxes, but LCFC seem to have several of that ilk. Plus they have great fullbacks who no one beats for pace, whilst annoyingly they also they attack at pace (Bruno in his prime x 2).
Yes - fair enough. But it seems to me as though the way it is worded is designed to cover precisely what we're talking about? That is, let play go on, don't blow your whistle. If a goal is scored, we'll look at the build up, and if not offside (even if flagged) the goal will stand. So - it's not actually reviewing the decision, as the ref (if he hasn't blown) hasn't made the decision. I think. Anyway, it seemed to work in this instance!
Yup, precisely. My point was simply a process one - the offside isn't reviewed the "goal" is, because offsides aren't one of the four things that can be reviewed. Like you say, that instruction is built in to avoid this restriction to only four reviewable situations costing them in simply avoidable ways.
Peter Grummit
Well-known member
It is apparent there remain pros and cons of VAR. One con which I think will occur soon is the following:
- player is offside but lino keeps their flag down, under the above instruction if at all marginal
- short tussle between attacker and defender, ball goes for corner
- goal is scored from corner, not VARable since infringement was prior to the ball going dead
Q is, how long can the lino wait before a retrospective flag is raised?
PG
Looking at the instructions they shouldn't retrospectively raise their flag. They either raise it if they are confident it is offside, or not and let it go - if a goal is scored it will be looked at.
You're right, there are flaws in that. But those flaws exist throughout VAR - the 'resetting' of play during an attack is largely subjective, and can mean an infringement of the law that was missed (or in the case of the offside, deliberately not given) doesn't get reviewed because the play was 'reset'. I suppose it comes down to how much of a chance do the defending team have to get set up in a way that the missed infringement isn't an excuse. Sure, the corner shouldn't be given, but at a certain point shouldn't the defence get over the mistake and focus on the job at hand as they would have had to do with mistakes before VAR?