Dogawful Officiating

[Adam]

1 hour ago, Checko said:

 

Reckless has a specific meaning in the rules and is a yellow card offence:

 

"Reckless is when a player acts with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent and must be cautioned"

 

For a red card it would be:

 

"SERIOUS FOUL PLAY

A tackle or challenge that endangers the safety of an opponent or uses excessive force or brutality must be sanctioned as serious foul play.

Any player who lunges at an opponent in challenging for the ball from the front, from the side or from behind using one or both legs, with excessive force or endangers the safety of an opponent is guilty of serious foul play."

 

"Using excessive force is when a player exceeds the necessary use of force and endangers the safety of an opponent and must be sent off"

 

I mean its pretty clear he uses excessive force, and endangers the safety of the opponent. He's dived in to play the man, if he was trying to play the ball he would be swiping round with his front leg. Taking a running jump in to someone is the definition of excessive force. 

[80]

The weird thing is I was half hoping he wasn't sent off. I'm not sure we would've won, Liverpool style, if he had. I think the sense of injustice fuelled the performance.

[MrRaspberryJam]

1 hour ago, M4 said:

Most of the aftermath from these incidents is tedious as hell, but I do love the random horror show of making up rules and interpretations that come up. Two favourites from today:

 

"All of the ball that's on the ground is out, so that's enough. In any other circumstances that would be judged over the line"

 

"Rule states that there has to be two players behind the goalkeeper for the player scoring to be onside."

I thought that two behind the keeper rule was true? 

[Pilko]

2 minutes ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

I thought that two behind the keeper rule was true? 

 

Oooh, don't you know?

[MrRaspberryJam]

Just now, Pilko said:

 

Oooh, don't you know?

I thought it was two defenders behind the keeper but ones alright. 

[Pilko]

1 minute ago, MrRaspberryJam said:

I thought it was two defenders behind the keeper but ones alright. 

 

He went to the VAR to get it.

[Optimistic Nut]

 

 

 

[MrRaspberryJam]

Just now, Pilko said:

 

He went to the VAR to get it.

Thanks very much now get Mikael Arteta out of my sight. 

[nemtizz]

Why am I blocked by Don Hutchison

[Adam]

Its 100% a red card.

 

 

[Checko]

4 hours ago, Adam said:

 

I mean its pretty clear he uses excessive force, and endangers the safety of the opponent. He's dived in to play the man, if he was trying to play the ball he would be swiping round with his front leg. Taking a running jump in to someone is the definition of excessive force. 

Yeah I think it was a red card personally as well .

[Skeletor]

There's no debate about it. The only reason he wasn't sent off is because he plays for Arsenal.

[GideonShandy]

On 04/11/2023 at 14:45, Checko said:

I used to think that, but it's not actually in the rules. You can be offside if the ball goes backwards.

This is verbatim from the FA rule book.

 

"A player is in an offside position if:

any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and

any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:

second-last opponent or

last two opponents"

 

So if you are behind the ball, you can't be offside (see above).  If you're behind the ball and it is played towards you, the ball has necessarily gone backwards. So you can't be offside if the ball goes backwards.

[Geordie Ahmed]

3 hours ago, GideonShandy said:

This is verbatim from the FA rule book.

 

"A player is in an offside position if:

any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and

any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.

A player is not in an offside position if level with the:

second-last opponent or

last two opponents"

 

So if you are behind the ball, you can't be offside (see above).  If you're behind the ball and it is played towards you, the ball has necessarily gone backwards. So you can't be offside if the ball goes backwards.

 

If you are behind the ball you can't be offside, that is true but the direction of the ball is irrelevant, you can be offside if the ball goes backwards

 

It's absolutely rare you see this as it's quite unique but the main example I can think of is the Harry Kane goal against Sporting last season that was disallowed, despite Emerson heading the ball backwards it was disallowed as Kane was in an offside position

[madras]

I think the game needs to look at some sort of rule change to stop repeated breaking up of play from deep. Forwards committing cheap fouls to stop breaks and defences can reset. Man City and Arsenal are doing it a lot.

[Holmesy]

11 hours ago, Adam said:

Its 100% a red card.

 

 

It's not just a potential leg breaker, its a potential career ender. Coming in from that height, with that velocity is going to shatter someone's leg, not just snap it. It's a sickening challenge. I can't believe more hasn't been made of it tbh

[NUFC]

Dale Johnsons VAR review live https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38799451/the-var-review-newcastle-goal-guimaraes-red-vs-arsenal/?_nocache

[The Prophet]

53 minutes ago, NUFC said:

Dale Johnsons VAR review live https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_/id/38799451/the-var-review-newcastle-goal-guimaraes-red-vs-arsenal/?_nocache

 

Agree with pretty much all of that.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Yeah, very good summary, it's actually an excellent use of VAR. Bruno was very lucky for that forearm. 

[wormy]

3 hours ago, Holmesy said:

It's not just a potential leg breaker, its a potential career ender. Coming in from that height, with that velocity is going to shatter someone's leg, not just snap it. It's a sickening challenge. I can't believe more hasn't been made of it tbh

 

But we scored a questionable goal!

 

While Arsenal embarrass themselves I hope we're quietly going about our business with the officials in raising what a joke of a decision that was.

[Froggy]

7 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

Agree with pretty much all of that.

 

I'm still not sure on our disallowed goal. Yes Maguire is offside, but Muniz is marking him and not Garnacho. Maguire doesn't impact the phase of play which led to the goal. If Muniz was marking Garnacho and Maguire impeded him then sure, but Muniz wasn't getting anywhere near Garnacho.

 

Find it quite a tricky one as almost every phase of play will have someone being man-marked by an opponent. 

 

Don't know how Havertz wasn't sent off either and how there isn't more talk about it. He lunged at him. Clear dangerous play.

[Geordie Ahmed]

5 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I'm still not sure on our disallowed goal. Yes Maguire is offside, but Muniz is marking him and not Garnacho. Maguire doesn't impact the phase of play which led to the goal. If Muniz was marking Garnacho and Maguire impeded him then sure, but Muniz wasn't getting anywhere near Garnacho.

 

Find it quite a tricky one as almost every phase of play will have someone being man-marked by an opponent. 

 

Don't know how Havertz wasn't sent off either and how there isn't more talk about it. He lunged at him. Clear dangerous play.

 

I thought it was the correct decisions

 

Is Maguire in an offside position? Yes

Does he impact Muniz's ability to play the ball? Yes

 

It's quite clear unless I'm missing something 

[The Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

I'm still not sure on our disallowed goal. Yes Maguire is offside, but Muniz is marking him and not Garnacho. Maguire doesn't impact the phase of play which led to the goal. If Muniz was marking Garnacho and Maguire impeded him then sure, but Muniz wasn't getting anywhere near Garnacho.

 

Find it quite a tricky one as almost every phase of play will have someone being man-marked by an opponent. 

 

Don't know how Havertz wasn't sent off either and how there isn't more talk about it. He lunged at him. Clear dangerous play.

 

Should have specified, regarding our game. Didn't watch your lot so can't comment.

[Froggy]

3 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

 

I thought it was the correct decisions

 

Is Maguire in an offside position? Yes

Does he impact Muniz's ability to play the ball? Yes

 

It's quite clear unless I'm missing something 

 

I understand that, but Muniz wasn't marking Garnacho. It's just a very thin line of what constitues interfering with play.

 

You look at this decision and then look at the Akanji one and I think the latter is far more clear cut, yet it was given.

 

[Froggy]

Just now, The Prophet said:

Should have specified, regarding our game. Didn't watch your lot so can't comment.

 

I think Havertz and Bruno G should have both been sent off in your game.

 

No clear way of telling if the ball was out of play. If we're going to use VAR every ground should really have cameras on the byline.