by sandman » 06 Jan 2019 22:45
by Zip » 06 Jan 2019 22:48
Old Man AndrewsPlatypuss Oh, you supporters.
Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.
This forum reflects that.
by sandman » 06 Jan 2019 22:50
Zip Irrespective of whether it was a pen or not it’s about time one or two decisions went our way. The 50/50 calls are going against us. On the balance of probabilities that has to change pretty soon.
by Snowflake Royal » 06 Jan 2019 22:52
2 world wars, 1 world cupSnowflake Royal2 world wars, 1 world cup
Thanks again for you input.
Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.
If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.
No. If you're arguing Fred is interfering with play before Richards makes his challenge you're just wrong. If that were the case, any player in an offside position would be committing an offside offence as soon as the ball is played even vaguely in their direction, whether they move for it, challenge the keeper or not
Fred isn't active until he's swinging at the ball. Lukaku would be active at the point he's interfering with a challenge.
So the sequence is:
1. Fred high boot - both players doing it and it's not dangerous - no foul
2. Lukaku affecting Richards - negligible, not given by the officials on the pitch, no clear and obvious error - can't be overruled as offside
3. Richards takes out Mata - missed by ref, clear and obvious error - overturned by VAR
4. Fred offside - only when he takes a swing at the ball, occurs after Richards offence so irrelevant
Penalty.
Simple.
No not any player. Many times not as you rightly say, but sometimes a player IS deemed to have caused an offence despite not touching the ball. It does happen. Yet some (not you) evidently still believe you have to actually touch a ball to have caused an offside offence. Not true:
"A player does not necessarily have to touch the ball to influence play. They are still offside if, in the opinion of the referee, they are judged to be: Interfering with an opponent: If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside."
(By offside the above, for the purposes of this discussion means committing an offside offence, not just being offside.)
So to reiterate the issue here: Fred was making a "gesture or movement" which 'deceived and distracted' the Reading team by running into that offside position, putting the Reading players (eg Richards) under the pressure to act in a way he would not normally necessarily have acted had Fred not made this run.
THis is of course open to interpretation and opinion and you may feel no RIchards would have tackled him even if Fred was not there. Fair enough. But this discussion centres around how much of a "deceiving" "distracting" "gesture or movement" this run was - and that arguably one could see it this way.
I would argue the fact that he made the run with the clear intent to receive the ball and take a shot suggests that the players would have felt the same, because this is exactly what happened moments later, so this was arguably a distracting run affecting the Reading players' ability to play the ball. Thus an offence. Thus the pass an offence. Thus arguably the foul occurred after an offence. Thus it would be arguably acceptable for the ref to not give the pen, totally independently of the Lukaku situation.
by Snowflake Royal » 06 Jan 2019 22:54
Hound I’m surprised anyone cares that much about the penalty decision as to spend pages and pages arguing about it.
Have to admit to not really liking VAR in its current form though. Who wants to sit through 3 minutes of the ref decided what to do? Not like in cricket where you can actually watch the decision making process, and actually can add to the atmosphere
by Wycombe Royal » 06 Jan 2019 23:27
Snowflake Royal Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.
by sandman » 06 Jan 2019 23:29
Wycombe RoyalSnowflake Royal Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.
Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
by Nameless » 07 Jan 2019 00:22
Wycombe RoyalSnowflake Royal Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.
Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
by Pepe the Horseman » 07 Jan 2019 07:21
sandmanWycombe RoyalSnowflake Royal Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.
Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
Keith fukking Hackett needs to learn that Ian Royal is right about everything. Who the fukk does he think he is?
by Wycombe Royal » 07 Jan 2019 08:05
NamelessWycombe RoyalSnowflake Royal Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.
Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.
It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?
by Platypuss » 07 Jan 2019 08:10
Zip Irrespective of whether it was a pen or not it’s about time one or two decisions went our way. The 50/50 calls are going against us. On the balance of probabilities that has to change pretty soon.
by RoyalBlue » 07 Jan 2019 08:11
NamelessWycombe RoyalSnowflake Royal Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.
Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.
It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awarding a penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?
by Snowflake Royal » 07 Jan 2019 08:18
Wycombe RoyalNamelessWycombe Royal Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.
It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?
Why is the VAR referee more qualified than Hackett? We also had a one of the best Assistant Referees in the world made the original call for offside. The simple fact is the offside occurred before the foul.
Just because it is VAR doesn't mean they will get it right and on this occasion they didn't. Also why aren't we using the pitchside screens so that the referee can view the incident again? I would rather VAR wasn't used at all and just leave it to the officials on the pitch.
But as I said it is irrelevant as the decision went against us.
by Platypuss » 07 Jan 2019 08:19
by Nameless » 07 Jan 2019 08:57
Wycombe RoyalNamelessWycombe Royal Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.
He says you are wrong.
However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.
You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.
It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?
Why is the VAR referee more qualified than Hackett? We also had a one of the best Assistant Referees in the world made the original call for offside. The simple fact is the offside occurred before the foul.
Just because it is VAR doesn't mean they will get it right and on this occasion they didn't. Also why aren't we using the pitchside screens so that the referee can view the incident again? I would rather VAR wasn't used at all and just leave it to the officials on the pitch.
But as I said it is irrelevant as the decision went against us.
by Hound » 07 Jan 2019 09:12
by Snowball » 07 Jan 2019 09:13
Hound Did anyone see that O Shea was going to come on, but injured himself warming up? Isn't this the second time this has happened this year?
Ridiculous really - he has to be moved on. If you can't rely on his fitness and being able to do his job in just the situation you may need him, he is even more pointless
Hound Did anyone see that O Shea was going to come on, but injured himself warming up? Isn't this the second time this has happened this year?
Ridiculous really - he has to be moved on. If you can't rely on his fitness and being able to do his job in just the situation you may need him, he is even more pointless
by Stranded » 07 Jan 2019 09:24
biff Keith Hackett
"I am the biggest supporter of VAR. In England however we are doing our best to make something simple difficult. Darren Cann one of the Worlds top Assistant referees correctly flagged for offside. VAR Moss decides to get involved and say PK. Oh dear check sequence of events"
Halsey agrees. Wrong decision.
by genome » 07 Jan 2019 09:39
Old Man AndrewsPlatypuss Oh, you supporters.
Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.
This forum reflects that.
Users browsing this forum: blueroyals and 1066 guests