FA Cup 22/23

[WalMelton]

That decision is shocking. Wolves should be 3-2 up. Unbelievable….

[Corky]

Why wasn't the second Liverpool goal offside? I thought Peter Walton gave some shit about a similar goal in the Champions League final?

[The Bear]

7 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

I’ve freeze framed that wolves goal and I think the lino prob got it wrong 

the first header by a wolves player goes back towards the corner taker and I think he’s probably offside at that point. But it then comes off a second wolves head and at that point I doubt that he’s offside. TAA is very deep at the far post. I don’t think that the lino sees the second header. 

Also, he's looking through a crowded box and can see perfectly that Nunes is offside on the opposite side of the pitch? 

 

Pull the other one!

Edited 7 January 2023 by The Bear

[Bert]

Eni Aluko is really unbearable 

[LcFc_Smiv]

16 minutes ago, CWC1983 said:

Surely the ref has to go to linesman and ask what bit of the play he is flagging for. Did he see trent on the goal line? 

 

If its the corner taker then fair enough. If its for the goal then he has to tell VAR to look at after the 2nd cross. 

 

There didn't look to be much conversation going on. 

You do realise their all mic’d up so can talk to each other throughout the game?

[adam]

Shock horror

Mike Dean the scouser to the rescue. 

Football is finished with this VAR nonsense. 

 

 

 

[The Bear]

A good yard or two onside IMO. Corrupt pricks. 

 

 

Edited 7 January 2023 by The Bear

[st albans fox]

7 minutes ago, The Bear said:

A good yard or two onside IMO. Corrupt pricks. 

 

 

That’s after the second head contact because nunes isn’t in shot when the contact happens - but he’s have to be really sprinting to have been off

[CWC1983]

29 minutes ago, LcFc_Smiv said:

You do realise their all mic’d up so can talk to each other throughout the game?

Mic'd up, no chance. 

If they can't afford a VAR camera on the 6 yard line there's no way they can afford 3 working headsets.....😁

[SAFC1]

Saudi scum 

[The Quick Brown Fox]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

The camera angle isn't available so they have to go with the onfield decision.

 

How very fvcking convenient

 

Why not just use on field decisions for everything then and fvck VAR off all together? 

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Corky said:

Why wasn't the second Liverpool goal offside? I thought Peter Walton gave some shit about a similar goal in the Champions League final?

Just saw it on MOTD. I don't really understand how it's not offside. 

[bovril]

God Liverpool are shady 

[trabuch]

Absolutely mental decisions in the wolves liverpool game.

[Super_horns]

30 minutes ago, browniefox said:

Why not just use on field decisions for everything then and fvck VAR off all together? 

And accept officials might get things wrong from time to time ?

 

Never catch on!

 

VAR is only here as people in the game demanded technology came as they thought all controversial incidents would suddenly disappear and they voted for it (the clubs )

 

Wolves “goal” was  a bit like umpires call in cricket (which some have called for in football) where they cannot find proof the decision was wrong so had to go with the original call.
 

Like wise the Salah goal was going by the laws the officials have to follow even if people don't like it.

Edited 8 January 2023 by Super_horns

[KFS]

1 hour ago, SAFC1 said:

Saudi scum 

Celebrated their loss today. Let’s hope we can make it 2/2 Tuesday

[dsr-burnley]

5 hours ago, StanSP said:

Is it me or does the Newcastle defender's foot play Windass onside? 

Windass was onside because he was level with the Newcastle man.  Remember that this match is not played under the new VAR rules of "level does not exist", it is under the old rule of "level is onside", and when the law was changed in about 1990, the guidance for refs (in Lancashire, at least) specifically said that "level" was to be judged by normal human eye, not by inches.  The quote, as exactly as I can remember it, was "If the player looks level to the human eye, then he is level".  

 

If only the VAR fanatics could remember that,  I think they genuinely believe they are helping the game by introducing long delays, by spoiling goal celebrations, and by disallowing goals which were perfectly legal until two years ago.

[dsr-burnley]

Going back even further, until about the mid-1970's the offside law used to say that if a defender touched the ball, the attacker was "played onside" just as Salah was today.  That law was scrapped because it led to nonsense goals like Salah's was today.  The difference now is that the stupidly complicated guidance means that the law as written, to paraphrase, is that "when a defender touches the ball the attacker is sometimes played onside and sometimes isn't played onside, but we don't really know which is which".

[The Bear]

Here's the moment Hwang flicks it on to Nunes. Looks on to me. Unsurprisingly. 

 

 

[filbertway]

5 hours ago, Miquel The Work Geordie said:

 

That just looks worse slowed down I think, never intentional – and I think Robertson is a little rat.

You can see Traore catches him which knocks him off his original path. First few looks I thought he had done it on purpose, but once you see the contact from Traore on his left leg I think it was just a natural movement.

 

Still not sure how Salah wasn't deemed to be involved in the phase of play where the player purposefully crossed it for him and the defender purposefully tried to prevent the ball doing to him.

[filbertway]

13 minutes ago, The Bear said:

Here's the moment Hwang flicks it on to Nunes. Looks on to me. Unsurprisingly. 

 

 

It's very close, I assume this is a picture from the crowd is it?

 

Shame as well as it's really not an instance that the offside law was introduced to prevent.

[Voll Blau]

10 hours ago, Bert said:

A replay for Liverpool. Wonderful. 

Always a great outcome.

[Super_horns]

8 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Windass was onside because he was level with the Newcastle man.  Remember that this match is not played under the new VAR rules of "level does not exist", it is under the old rule of "level is onside", and when the law was changed in about 1990, the guidance for refs (in Lancashire, at least) specifically said that "level" was to be judged by normal human eye, not by inches.  The quote, as exactly as I can remember it, was "If the player looks level to the human eye, then he is level".  

 

If only the VAR fanatics could remember that,  I think they genuinely believe they are helping the game by introducing long delays, by spoiling goal celebrations, and by disallowing goals which were perfectly legal until two years ago.

I guess that is why Shearer didn’t make a big fuss of it .

 

Just accepted there was no VAR so it was a human error as the assistant wasn’t up with play .

 

And it was pretty tight like you say .

 

The sort where had is been disallowed everyone who wasn’t a Newcastle fan would have complained it was “against the spirit of the game “ and not want they want to see.

[Super_horns]

5 hours ago, filbertway said:

It's very close, I assume this is a picture from the crowd is it?

 

Shame as well as it's really not an instance that the offside law was introduced to prevent.

I presume VAR didn’t have that angle - maybe it should do?

 

TBH I think the Salah goal is more of an issue as that seems to be a rather unfair ruling .

[Raj]

I'm most probably being lazy but I know the good people of FT will sort me out...

What games are on "Standard" tv today please?