Wolves 1-2 West Ham: Verdict Thread

[The Saturday Boy]

A touch pedantic, without VAR the ref doesn't

The Assistant may have flagged like the good old days. Still wasn’t VAR that over ruled the goal.

 

[pavlosmacwolf]

Worst afternoon read in a long time, thanks Beaver.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

I was in the North Bank too and didn’t think there was a lot wrong with their disallowed goal in real time. Seeing it on TV, I still think we were fortunate although I can see why it was disallowed. I’d have been pretty annoyed if it was the other way around.

The RAN penalty was one of those were VAR would have gone with the ref’s decision regardless. I don’t think they’d have overturned it if it hadn’t been given.

I agree that the penalty is soft, fully expected it to be over ruled, and my initial thought on Semedo disallowed goal was that they'd got it wrong. But on the replay Emerson stands on Semedo's foot/ankle, it was the right decision.

 

[The Dude]

well of course you can factor it in, you're just saying it'll add subjectivity but then you're saying the officials already rule subjectively and there is no consistency in any case.

It's why adding more subjectivity is a bad idea.

I think what we are seeing in recent seasons is that in their attempts to achieve some degree of consistency, which I'd agree with you that they're inevitably failing in, IFAB and/or Refs' guidances are trying to straightjacket referees into giving the same decision to certain positional or handball scenarios regardless of any other differing factors. Those other factors are usually quite important in a game of football particularly in assessing if a decision is fair. So we end up with decisions that appear or actually are unfair, made to supposedly achieve consistency that they then fail to achieve.

The officials should concentrate on getting their current job right. Which as you said, they're failing at.

 

[Carsy]

A touch pedantic, without VAR the ref doesn't

Without VAR the Lino may flag. (I don’t think he would, but it is possible)

The issue with VAR also is some decisions just aren’t made on the pitch with the caveat of ‘VAR will sort it’. Look at the needless delays of offsides at times.

 

[Carsy]

Without VAR the Lino may flag. (I don’t think he would, but it is possible)

The issue with VAR also is some decisions just aren’t made on the pitch with the caveat of ‘VAR will sort it’. Look at the needless delays of offsides at times.

Just seen @The Saturday Boy has said that. My mistake

 

[Deutsch Wolf]

The nuances of that decision should not mask us picking a poor player out of position for no reason, failing to offer any serious threat after half time and displaying the ball retention skills of a Howard Wilkinson team.

 

[nimrod]

It's why adding more subjectivity is a bad idea.

The officials should concentrate on getting their current job right. Which as you said, they're failing at.

The thing is, the direction and speed of an effort on goal is rather fundamental to the game of football and to the opportunity of a goalkeeper to save it. we even, unbelievably, rate and value players on their ability to do it.

so can appreciate refs might be shit at assessing many things, but that’s no excuse for ignoring a fundamental factor to one of their own stated criteria. Don’t they have two paid for idiots in the VAR booth to help them? ‘Do we think the goalkeeper could have reached that’ doesn’t sound like a high bar for our referees to aspire to get over.

 

[The Bear]

"...preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball."
Fabianski was never getting to the ball, he wasn't prevented from playing it or being able to play it.

You missed out the key part of the phrase.

"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision”.

It's only an offence if Chirewa was obstructing Fabianski's line of vision. Which he wasn't.


I don't like the rule full stop. As with the goal from the corner, obstructing a keeper is fine if you're onside but not ok if you're offside? It's a nonsense rule. They should just change it back to being offside or not, and then are you interfering with active play, i.e near the ball.

 

[BillyDee]

You missed out the key part of the phrase.

I didn't.

The context of the discussion at that point was was whether it was relevant if the keeper was able to reach the ball or not. As they weren't close to being able to save it, they weren't prevented from playing the ball.

The bit you've highlighted then becomes irrelevant. Whether their line of vision was obstructed or not was not a factor that prevented them being able to play the ball, their position relative to the ball was.

The position of Chirewa was not a factor in Fabianski being unable to save the header. Not offside, goal should stand.

 

[The Bear]

I didn't.

The context of the discussion at that point was was whether it was relevant if the keeper was able to reach the ball or not. As they weren't close to being able to save it, they weren't prevented from playing the ball.

The bit you've highlighted then becomes irrelevant. Whether their line of vision was obstructed or not was not a factor that prevented them being able to play the ball, their position relative to the ball was.

The position of Chiwome was not a factor in Fabianski being unable to save the header. Not offside, goal should stand.

The line of sight being blocked is the key part of the phrase. Only by doing that is it an infringement.

Stopping him playing the ball "BY" blocking line of sight.

 

[BillyDee]

Read it again...

 

[The Bear]

Read it again...

It's you who are reading it incorrectly.

If you cause something by doing another thing, then the other thing is the key part.

 

[BillyDee]

Read it again...

If something isn't caused, the other thing isn't relevant.

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

The fact that there are so many differing opinions on how it is worded shows that it hasn't been worded well.

 

[Tony Towner]

The fact that there are so many differing opinions on how it is worded shows that it hasn't been worded well.

Or it's deliberately worded to be vague and give any referee an out

 

[Elephant Pyjamas]

Or it's deliberately worded to be vague and give any referee an out

I think this.

 

[nimrod]

Well I'm with Billy on this but of course the refs aren't at this stage since they are happy to ignore whether it was even possible for the keeper to have made a save and so think they're doing a good job by disallowing perfectly acceptable goals as a result. It's not really about us and the one point lost, it's just the shitty clueless stance they have on this and various other things.

 

[The Dude]

The thing is, the direction and speed of an effort on goal is rather fundamental to the game of football and to the opportunity of a goalkeeper to save it. we even, unbelievably, rate and value players on their ability to do it.

so can appreciate refs might be shit at assessing many things, but that’s no excuse for ignoring a fundamental factor to one of their own stated criteria. Don’t they have two paid for idiots in the VAR booth to help them? ‘Do we think the goalkeeper could have reached that’ doesn’t sound like a high bar for our referees to aspire to get over.

The dickheads failed to recognise that the GK wasn't impeded by Chiwome nor blindsided by him, as evidenced by multiple angles...

I rest my case your honour.

 

[BeaverWolf]

Correct. It's a game of opinions.

Deutsch is notoriously hard to please with Doc these days, which is fine as he has noticeable limitations. Sometimes I think it's a bit harsh, but I don't want him playing either if we can help it. And certainly not at LWB.

His upper ceiling is only ever going to be ok-good with us now. He's never going to be the player he was under Nuno.

We do not have too many options as we all know.