That 'controversial' Wolves disallowed goal.....

exeterboro

exeterboro

Well-known member
I dont see what the fuss is about, the Wolves player definitely stood in front of the goalie on purpose, Why? because in training they are taught to make the situation as awkward as possible for the goalie so they can benefit from it, his presence stopped the goalie coming for it and the fact that the goalie didn't dive is because he still possibly had uncertainty over where the ball was eventually going to go without possible other player interventions, because the obstructing wolves player was interfering with his full view of the area in front of him. Yes he could see the header but nothing below that and also there was uncertainty what the player obstructing him was going to do.
 
Thanks AT corrected. Apparently the offside is irrelevant if the Wolves player is not impacting or interfering with play.
 
Just watched it on Match of the Day now, I'm actually shocked that this is the decision being described as controversial.

It's blatantly offside.

Gary O'Neil and the pundits talking a load of rubbish about it.
 
I disagree personally. There was no way Fabianski was saving that header and therefore the player stood in front of him had no impact on the outcome. Should be a goal.
 
WilliamMunny said:
I disagree personally. There was no way Fabianski was saving that header and therefore the player stood in front of him had no impact on the outcome. Should be a goal.
Click to expand...

If a player in an offside position wasn't backing in to him and obstructing his view, there's every chance that Fabianski would have been in a different position and able to save it comfortably.

He was offside and he was impacting play.
 
I don't know that you can strictly technically argue the relevance of this under the rules but that player has pinned Fabianski close to the line, blocked him from possibly going for the cross or having a better angle on the header and the keeper has to play the man a bit in case of a flick on or knock down to him. He wouldn't be there if he wasn't attempting to influence the play.

Has he specifically prevented Fabianski from saving the header? Probably not, it was a good header. But I think there's enough to contend with in the letter of the law, he's in an offside position and clearly within the keeper's eyeline, so the offside is justifiable.

The Wolves lad probably should have been clearing out and getting onside in case of a rebound, flick on or if the header had been into the deck nearer the keeper anyway, I can't assume the plan is supposed to be for him to linger offside.

For me it's a vaguely arguable decision that's nowhere near as dramatic as Gary O'Neil and the MOTD lads seemed to think it was.
 
TeaCider said:
If a player in an offside position wasn't backing in to him and obstructing his view, there's every chance that Fabianski would have been in a different position and able to save it comfortably.

He was offside and he was impacting play.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, but it’s not factual. Plenty of people, me included, think his presence at the point the ball was headed had no impact on the outcome. I can understand why others might see it differently. However, I can’t see how it meets the threshold of a clear and obvious error for VAR to overturn the on field decision.
 
WilliamMunny said:
In your opinion, but it’s not factual. Plenty of people, me included, think his presence at the point the ball was headed had no impact on the outcome. I can understand why others might see it differently. However, I can’t see how it meets the threshold of a clear and obvious error for VAR to overturn the on field decision.
Click to expand...

It's factual that a player in an offside position was backing in to the keeper and blocking his view, which is impacting play.

It was offside.
 
TeaCider said:
It's factual that a player in an offside position was backing in to the keeper and blocking his view, which is impacting play.

It was offside.
Click to expand...
It isn’t. Any backing in, of which there was minimal anyway and not enough to be considered a foul, happened before the header and is irrelevant. The blocking his view argument is entirely subjective.
 
Thought exactly the same as most on here watching it last night, so glad I'm not the only one. He's offside and his only purpose in being there is to block off the keeper. Couldn't believe the unanimity of the pundits saying the goal should have stood. Anyway, it didn't, and I enjoyed watching O'Neil crying about it.
 
Offside all day long and frankly have no time for Wolves so not unhappy West Ham won as a result.
 
It's an odd one. I don't like to see players deliberately obstructing the keeper, yet keepers get the benefit of the doubt so many times. Under the letter of the law I can see both interpretations as "correct". He didn't interfere with the movement of the keeper when the header is made or impede his sight lines. However, as the ball is played he prevents the keeper from coming off his line to challenge or punch the ball. This is a the mess created by tinkering with the offside rule. I'd prefer a straight rule if you are in an "offside position" (i.e. less than two oppo players between you and the goal etc.) you are offside. If you want to tweak the rule ignore the offence it if the ball does not come within ten yards of the offside player (E.g. a player on the left wing when the ball is centred from the right)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top