Bournemouth (H) - Sat 27th Aug 2022 (3:00pm)

[VladimirIlyich]

5 hours ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

I'll say more about the performance soon, but fuck me the Mepham OG was an appalling decision by the ref. 

 

I mean, how unfair is that? If we were on the other side of that decision we'd be furious. 

How so? It was a perfectly correct decision under the laws of the game. Our player(Carvalho) didnt touch the ball therefore gained no advantage.

[Colonel Bumcunt]

5 hours ago, VladimirIlyich said:

How so? It was a perfectly correct decision under the laws of the game. Our player(Carvalho) didnt touch the ball therefore gained no advantage.

The advantage was gained by the referee letting play continue despite a very clear offside that he could have blown for immediately, but now has to let play continue.

 

Mepham doesn't know for sure that Carvalho is offside, so he attempts to race back and block but he's at a huge disadvantage because Carvalho is allowed to get a head start on him. 

 

I find it utterly bizarre that the rules still allow for this mad interpretation of letting things play out, and yet I've also seen whistles blown for obvious offsides.  

[Pidge]

It was Diaz, not Carvalho.

[Anubis]

Mepham has scored a goal at Anfield at the Kop end, and some of you bastards want to take that away from the lad.

[VladimirIlyich]

59 minutes ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

The advantage was gained by the referee letting play continue despite a very clear offside that he could have blown for immediately, but now has to let play continue.

 

Mepham doesn't know for sure that Carvalho is offside, so he attempts to race back and block but he's at a huge disadvantage because Carvalho is allowed to get a head start on him. 

 

I find it utterly bizarre that the rules still allow for this mad interpretation of letting things play out, and yet I've also seen whistles blown for obvious offsides.  

'It is not an offence to be in an offside position' is how the appropriate wording from the LOTG.

[Colonel Bumcunt]

29 minutes ago, VladimirIlyich said:

'It is not an offence to be in an offside position' is how the appropriate wording from the LOTG.

No problem with that, but Trent then crosses to the offside player, and a defender has to rapidly make up ground  by lunging to catch up with an offside player.

[VladimirIlyich]

5 minutes ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

No problem with that, but Trent then crosses to the offside player, and a defender has to rapidly make up ground  by lunging to catch up with an offside player.

But no attacking player touched the ball therefore no offence. No advantage was gained therefore a goal. It shouldnt have taken so long to review on that godforsaken VAR review shit though.

[Mook]

'no advantage was gained'.

 

Other than a goal.

[aws]

It's a stupid rule but that's what the law currently says. It probably cost us the CL so I'm not feeling too sorry for Bournemouth. 

[Guest]

 

[Torvald Utne]

1 hour ago, VladimirIlyich said:

But no attacking player touched the ball therefore no offence. No advantage was gained therefore a goal. It shouldnt have taken so long to review on that godforsaken VAR review shit though.

 

19 minutes ago, aws said:

It's a stupid rule but that's what the law currently says. It probably cost us the CL so I'm not feeling too sorry for Bournemouth. 

I posted the rule a page back, attacking player doesn't need to touch the ball, just make an obvious attempt which affects the defender so unless I'm reading the rules wrong then it should have been offside.

[VladimirIlyich]

42 minutes ago, Mook said:

'no advantage was gained'.

 

Other than a goal.

No advantage was gained by the attacker,who wasnt offside because he didnt touch the ball. This is not a new law change and you wouldnt even be questioning it but for how everything has to be sensationalised for the media and it's VAR shit show.

[VladimirIlyich]

2 minutes ago, Torvald Utne said:

 

I posted the rule a page back, attacking player doesn't need to touch the ball, just make an obvious attempt which affects the defender so unless I'm reading the rules wrong then it should have been offside.

The attacker made no attempt to impede the defender therefore didnt gain an advantage. Trent was the last attacker to touch the ball and was the last one to touch the ball and he was 25 yards out. The 'offside' attacker gained nothing from his position.

[gkmacca]

As for their fans, it never fails to surprise me how people who neither look nor sound as though they've ever been in a library start singing 'Is this a library?' 

[Torvald Utne]

Offside if...challenging an opponent for the ball or

 

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

 

If he wasn't challenging the defender then defender could have just let it roll out.

 

He was attempting to play the ball which caused the defender to stretch to get his foot on it.

 

Satisfies both criteria for offside in my view but nice to be talking about one that was given in our favour anyway 

[TheHowieLama]

Obviously offside - missed by two "professionals" with numerous viewings.

[VladimirIlyich]

2 hours ago, Torvald Utne said:

Offside if...challenging an opponent for the ball or

 

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

 

If he wasn't challenging the defender then defender could have just let it roll out.

 

He was attempting to play the ball which caused the defender to stretch to get his foot on it.

 

Satisfies both criteria for offside in my view but nice to be talking about one that was given in our favour anyway 

Carvalho didnt challenge the defender at all so no offside. Simple. 'It is not an offence to be in an offside position' is the key to everything and the officials knew this before they had a 3 or 4 minute delay over nothing other than to manufacture some 'drama.'

[Supremolad]

The own goal simply wasnt offside according to the current rules. It's a shitty rule but other goals have been given in similar situations. It's not as if VAR and the ref decided to give the goal for the laughs. They had to because that's the way the rule is currently interpreted. 

 

Not sure why it is being insinuated we lost the CL due to a similar thing though. Unless we have a definitive angle which confirms Vinicius was offside when he tapped in the cross.

[cloggypop]

We've killed off our first manager of the season. Scott Pawker sacked. 

[Elite]

1 minute ago, cloggypop said:

We've killed off our first manager of the season. Scott Pawker sacked. 

He went out in style, full kamikaze.

[VladimirIlyich]

37 minutes ago, cloggypop said:

We've killed off our first manager of the season. Scott Pawker sacked. 

Wow! Not even a chance to fight back.

[aws]

We broke him. 

[A_S]

Pretty ridiculous. 

 

Gets them promoted, then faces City, Arsenal and Liverpool in the first 4 games. 

 

One for the Shitness thread. 

[Chip Butty]

Please give it to Tim Sherwood, please give it to Tim Sherwood...

[KMD7]

4 minutes ago, Chip Butty said:

Please give it to Tim Sherwood, please give it to Tim Sherwood...

That would be tremendous