The Rolls Royce
Winger
Absolutely bonkers that Fabianski is still playing mind. Genuinely thought he was 40 about 10 years ago.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Recall him playing for Swansea when we stuffed them in the premier league he was woeful that nightAbsolutely bonkers that Fabianski is still playing mind. Genuinely thought he was 40 about 10 years ago.
Or newest one just let go of him in time regarding shirt pullingHe was in an offside position, standing right in front of the keeper, therefore interfering with play - so as offside as offside can be. Remember these knackers paid to talk nonsense about the game are the same ones that’ll say “he felt contact so was entitled to go down” or that someone was ‘smart’ and helped his team out by falling down clutching his face…….
Neither did I, try harder.I never said it was a foul. Think harder.
He only becomes offside at the point the ball is headed.This! Some people are just thinking about the point the ball is headed and the fact Fabianski isn't getting it so it should be a goal. The Wolves player has made it difficult for the keeper by blocking his movement while being in an offside position not only at the point of the header but before and also restricting his view and movement to deal with the cross.
A similar example to this is at a free kick when a player stands in front of the keeper well offside. He's affecting the ability of the keeper to see what's going on prior to the kick. If the player runs back onside in time then he's done his job, making it harder for the keeper. If he's still offside blocking the keeper's view then he's still offside, simple as that.
If it was just taking into account the keeper's view at the point of kicking of the ball then you could just have a player stand right beside the keeper blocking most of his view. He would just step aside a few milliseconds before the ball is hit so the keeper has an unobstructed view at the point the ball is hit.
I know a player only becomes offside either when the ball is struck (or moves towards it intending to play in other circumstances). My point is that he's potentially in an offside position affecting the keeper's ability to see and play (or save) the ball prior to the point of heading. Take the Wolves player away completely from that chance and Fabianski has an unobstructed view and ability to play the ball, this is the law of the game isn't it?He only becomes offside at the point the ball is headed.
He’s not offside when the corner is struck although he could still be deemed to be obstructing the GK. Had the ball gone directly in (a la Ward Prowse) then the ref could have had grounds to disallow the goal for obstruction. That being said, the defender doesn’t have to move out of the keepers way. He’s entitled to stand where he wants but he’s not allowed to hold his arms out and back to pin the keeper on the spot.
I don’t think it’s anywhere near as bad a decision as they’re making out. I only seen the replay once but I thought the pen Wolves got was very soft and potentially a worse decision - looked like Emerson played the ball.
Still need to bin VAR. It’s a shambles.
As for VAR, it's a farce but sadly it won't be binned. There will be a time the main ref is in the video room to look at things closely but make quick decisions for his assistant who is now on the pitch. This gets rid of the Clear & Obvious shite that allows so much inconsistency but it doesn't look like it's happening soon.
It would depend on whether they were in an offside position when the ball is struck. If you’re onside you don’t have to move out of anyone’s way. It’s up to them to move around you - you’re just not allowed to stop them from doing that.I know a player only becomes offside either when the ball is struck (or moves towards it intending to play in other circumstances). My point is that he's potentially in an offside position affecting the keeper's ability to see and play (or save) the ball prior to the point of heading. Take the Wolves player away completely from that chance and Fabianski has an unobstructed view and ability to play the ball, this is the law of the game isn't it?
That's what I meant with free kick example as you could have 2 players standing right in front of keeper completely blocking his view. They both step to the side the milliseconds before the contact is made so then the keeper then has an unobstructed view for those milliseconds so would be be OK? I honestly don't know to be honest given the ball isn't in play but why don't teams do this and limit the keeper's view prior to the kick?
As for the Wolves penna, although there's nowt in the laws of the game about getting the ball, the defender didn't get the ball. He ends up making contact with the Wolves player's boot and in this instance, it wouldn't matter if he got a touch on ball as the ball was still there to be player but he brought down the Wolves player. He also lunges into the challenge with both feet a foot off the deck which from the ref's point of view in real-time will have made it look worse than the slow-mo.
Some even said the Arsenal penna last night wasn't a penna as the defender "got the ball". Again the law is something about impeding an opponent with contact yet some people think getting a toenail on the ball means it's a clean tackle. I'm nee ref but for me it depends on what happens after because if an attacker could still play the ball, even after the defender touches it slightly but is then taken out by the defender then it's a foul. The attacker hasn't been dispossessed just because of the toenail on the ball and would still be in control of the ball if not for the foul. If the defender comes sliding in and clears the ball away from both players dispossessing the attacker or the defender comes away with the ball then it's not a foul. Pretty simple really and I suppose it's the ambiguity of whether the attacker has been dispossessed that is up for debate, not if the defender got a toenail on the ball before wiping out the attacker.
As for VAR, it's a farce but sadly it won't be binned. There will be a time the main ref is in the video room to look at things closely but make quick decisions for his assistant who is now on the pitch. This gets rid of the Clear & Obvious shite that allows so much inconsistency but it doesn't look like it's happening soon.
Shirley that goes for any player, not just the keeper?I get it. Fabianski can see the ball but surely the Wolves player has him pinned as the corner comes in. He moves away from Fabianski before Kilman heads it but surely the ref can be forgiven for judging the Wolves player to be interfering with play by affecting Fabianski's movement as the ball is coming in.
The fact that Moyes was somehow favoured suggests that it should have been a goal. O'Neil has done remarkable job. Anybody who thinks otherwise knows nowtGary O’Neil is a prick anyway. Glad VAR agree.
This. Ref applies letter of the law thus should be above criticism. Applies common sense and, from WHU, is slated for not following the rules.ridiculous decision.
Hate this “ letter of the law” bollox.
That’s never been offside in a million years man.
2 keepers wouldn’t have saved that if no one was standing anywhere near them.
Common sense should’ve been applied there. Unfortunately that isn’t an option
O’Neil is proving to be a very good manager.The fact that Moyes was somehow favoured suggests that it should have been a goal. O'Neil has done remarkable job. Anybody who thinks otherwise knows nowt
Exactly, simple solution is font stand in a offside position in front of keeper.MOD presenters talking complete bollocks imho'It doesn’t make sense' – MOTD pundits on Wolves 'goal'
Match of the Day pundits analyse the decision to disallow a late Wolves equaliser against West Ham, with Gary Lineker suggesting that VAR is taking over - and that football needs an appeal system.www.bbc.co.uk
The Wolves player is clearly there for one reason only, to interfere with the keeper and prevent him from having any chance of playing the ball and being offside when the ball is headed in the centre of the goal, to boot.
The whole corner scenario situation needs to be looked at with attacking players blocking off defenders and defenders not even looking at the ball whilst manhandling their opponent.
Done a great job. Still think he’s a knob. I’ve thought it for years and years since he was a playerThe fact that Moyes was somehow favoured suggests that it should have been a goal. O'Neil has done remarkable job. Anybody who thinks otherwise knows nowt
If he was not offsides the goalkeeper might have seen it a little earlier and given it a go to save it thou I still think no keeper gets it……Bad luck on Wolves hopefully the season averages out for them on callsRef has denied the goal because on the camera angle the wolves player is right in front of the keeper
The keeper would have had no chance regardless but the ref has denied it because of the camera view and the plain text of the law
Get rid of VAR. it’ll never happen unfortunately
They weren’t robbed though. It’s clearly offside. It’s irrelevant if the keeper could have saved the shot, the player was offside. Not even debatable really.Wolves must absolutely detest VAR how many points has it robbed them this season