Anyone else got any volume on this link ?
RagsThey're speechless.
Anyone else got any volume on this link ?
RagsGlad it’s not just me. Got my air pods in my pocket and though it kept connecting to them 😁
Anyone else got any volume on this link ?
I'd love us to get a jammy goal at Huddersfield in return.
It doesn't need commentary or explanations from pundits.
We'd be furious if a goal like that was allowed against us.
It is not at all controversial that it was disallowed.
They would be better trying to explain how Hull scored against us and the clown officials gave it.
Sheep2It doesn't need commentary or explanations from pundits.
We'dwill be furiousifwhen a goal like thatwasis allowed against us.
It is not at all controversial that it was disallowed.
Just correcting a couple of typos ….
Sheep2It doesn't need commentary or explanations from pundits.
We'd be furious if a goal like that was allowed against us.
It is not at all controversial that it was disallowed.
We would be furious youre right, but that doesnt mean its not controversial IMO.
The rule is:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
If you freeze frame when Stansfield hits the ball, Buchanan isnt directly within the line of vision (the keeper dives to his right so can see where the ball is going) and so there's an argument hes not clearly obstructing him. Its only when the ball is already in motion when Buchanan gets in the way, and its not like hes making an attempt to play the ball, hes quite clearly trying to not touch it.
So yes, id be fuming if it was against us, but there's enough in there to have the debate and I do wonder what VAR would have made of it.
For me the question is whether it would have been allowed if certain Premier League teams had scored it.
I think the answer to that is yes.
no chance, seen a few similar ones ruled out by VAR this year
we were unfortunate that we had a linesman who was on the ball for once
He was offside and obstructed the keepers line of sight, it's as clear cut as you're gonna get, zero chance VAR would have ruled that as a goal
Yeah, the only gripe we can have is that more often than not, that gets given without VAR. It's a really good call by the lino.
The bastard.
[i.postimg.cc]
See the link from FA. 6 is offside, 7 is onside. Buchanan isnt directly in front of the keeper when Stansfield hits the ball so hes not entirely 6, but also definitely not 7.
So the question is how far away do you need to be from 6 to be onside? IMO Buchanan isnt far enough away so its the correct decision, but still not as cut and dry as others are making out.
I'll let it go now.
