v Ipswich Town (h) - Good Friday, 29/3/24, 17:30

[Hasta]

18 minutes ago, arbitro said:

That is from an angle which skews Szmodics' position. The actual replays rather than a still show him a lot closer to the keeper and in his eye line. I too have seen goals allowed for similar but felt they should have been disallowed too. Cardiff had a goal disallowed at Ewood this season for something very similar and as I recall it was pretty much unanimously supported on here.

If you watch the sky coverage it shows that replay during the main the game from 38.40 onwards. I can't post the video on here (on which Don Goodman actually changes his mind about whether he's offside when he sees it), but can only post the stills in sequence.

If you still think this clearly in the keepers line of vision then fine, but I disagree.

edit - I'm just going to crop and repost these to make them bigger.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2024 by Hasta

[arbitro]

5 minutes ago, Hasta said:

If you watch the sky coverage it shows that replay during the main the game from 38.40 onwards. I can't post the video on here (on which Don Goodman actually changes his mind about whether he's offside when he sees it), but can only post the stills in sequence. If you still think this clearly in the keepers line of vision then fine, but I disagree.

edit - I'm just going to crop and repost these to make them bigger.

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think he is directly in the keepers eye line but enough to be interfering with it. If course it's subjective and some are given, some not but there is definitely enough in this to support the referees decision in my view. Another point is that having seen it back he didn't need to be offside. As good as he has been He frustratingly gets caught offside a lot.

[wilsdenrover]

22 minutes ago, arbitro said:

I don't think he is directly in the keepers eye line but enough to be interfering with it. If course it's subjective and some are given, some not but there is definitely enough in this to support the referees decision in my view. Another point is that having seen it back he didn't need to be offside. As good as he has been He frustratingly gets caught offside a lot.

It would be much simpler if we went back to someone either being offside or not with none of this phase of play/interfering with play nonsense. 

[Ghost7]

41 minutes ago, Hasta said:

If you watch the sky coverage it shows that replay during the main the game from 38.40 onwards. I can't post the video on here (on which Don Goodman actually changes his mind about whether he's offside when he sees it), but can only post the stills in sequence.

If you still think this clearly in the keepers line of vision then fine, but I disagree.

edit - I'm just going to crop and repost these to make them bigger.

 

 

 

 

 

Even the keeper didn’t think he was, I think that’s all that’s needed. The majority of the time at this level it isn’t given.

[arbitro]

7 minutes ago, wilsdenrover said:

It would be much simpler if we went back to someone either being offside or not with none of this phase of play/interfering with play nonsense. 

It's another example where IFAB have complicated something that is relatively simple. Handball is the same and both of these laws make the officials job much harder and lead to more inconsistency. Add to that it is so confusing for players and spectators. It would have been interesting had we had VAR last night whether it would have been considered a clear and obvious error and recommended an OFR. 

[Cherry Blue]

43 minutes ago, Hasta said:

If you watch the sky coverage it shows that replay during the main the game from 38.40 onwards. I can't post the video on here (on which Don Goodman actually changes his mind about whether he's offside when he sees it), but can only post the stills in sequence.

If you still think this clearly in the keepers line of vision then fine, but I disagree.

edit - I'm just going to crop and repost these to make them bigger.

 

 

 

 

 

The assistant on Jack Walker side had no right to raise his flag. On what evidence without VAR could he see Szmodic was in line. The interfering with play bit is a talking point for the ref to make a decision but Atwell cancelled the goal without talking to his assistant.

Diabolical decision which will help Atwell and other refs officiate next time a similar action happens but sadly cost us.

[wilsdenrover]

16 minutes ago, arbitro said:

It's another example where IFAB have complicated something that is relatively simple. Handball is the same and both of these laws make the officials job much harder and lead to more inconsistency. Add to that it is so confusing for players and spectators. It would have been interesting had we had VAR last night whether it would have been considered a clear and obvious error and recommended an OFR. 

I think with VAR the ref doesn’t disallow it and waits to see if he gets a voice in his ear.

(This is obviously not the thread for this but one of my major issues with VAR is  I think some refs now think ‘I’ll leave that decision for my mate with the tele’)

 

 

[Exiled in Toronto Mk2]

1 hour ago, arbitro said:

I don't think he is directly in the keepers eye line but enough to be interfering with it. If course it's subjective and some are given, some not but there is definitely enough in this to support the referees decision in my view. Another point is that having seen it back he didn't need to be offside. As good as he has been He frustratingly gets caught offside a lot.

Under 70s rules it’s offside end of story but then Sammy would never be in the team for getting goals disallowed by being offside so carelessly and so often. The new rules have made players not bother about going offside while making them ridiculously bothered about where their arms are. Madness.

[chaddyrovers]

1 hour ago, Hasta said:

on which Don Goodman actually changes his mind about whether he's offside when he sees it

Wasn't the commentator Andy Hinchcliffe?  

[roversfan99]

Again, arguably the biggest error in terms of the impact it would have had on the game was a red card to Brittain and a penalty.

[Hasta]

11 minutes ago, chaddyrovers said:

Wasn't the commentator Andy Hinchcliffe?  

Might have been. I only flicked through and get the two mixed up.

[AllRoverAsia]

7 hours ago, NeilInBristol said:

Have we got the run in comparison somewhere on the forum? 

Not sure.

I just look at the individual clubs on somewhere like the BBC

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/teams/blackburn-rovers/scores-fixtures/2024-04

[AllRoverAsia]

7 hours ago, Herbie6590 said:

What about Brittain pulling their bloke down in the penalty area in the 1st half? 

You're not allowed to mention that.

 

4 hours ago, toogs said:

What’s happened to Callum Britain? Looked a reasonable footballer once. I now crap myself whenever the balls coming to him. The number of times he received the ball and instead of progressing into the space in front of him it’s a ponderous two touches, turn and knock it sideways back to where it came from. Zero risk football. No bottle. The sort of player that gets you relegated. We have a few of them. 

Thank you for telling the truth about Brittain. I've got tired of doing it on a match by match basis.

[Miller11]

 

 

For me this is the most clear and obvious bit of incompetence by Atwell and his dopey linesman…

https://x.com/roversradio/status/1774105427116003775?s=46

Edited March 30, 2024 by Miller11

[arbitro]

5 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Again, arguably the biggest error in terms of the impact it would have had on the game was a red card to Brittain and a penalty.

Penalty absolutely. Red card though - for what?

[roversfan99]

17 minutes ago, arbitro said:

Penalty absolutely. Red card though - for what?

Denial of a goalscoring opportunity surely. The double jeopardy rule only counts if a genuine attempt is made to play the ball.

[arbitro]

3 minutes ago, roversfan99 said:

Denial of a goalscoring opportunity surely. The double jeopardy rule only counts if a genuine attempt is made to play the ball.

How could it be an obvious goalscoring opportunity? The Ipswich player had his back to goal and wasn't in control of the ball. 

[Upside Down]

8 hours ago, arbitro said:

I don't think he is directly in the keepers eye line but enough to be interfering with it. If course it's subjective and some are given, some not but there is definitely enough in this to support the referees decision in my view. Another point is that having seen it back he didn't need to be offside. As good as he has been He frustratingly gets caught offside a lot.

If you're in the box and you're not interfering with play then you shouldn't be on the pitch. 

[arbitro]

13 minutes ago, Upside Down said:

If you're in the box and you're not interfering with play then you shouldn't be on the pitch. 

I don't really understand what you are implying. 

[wilsdenrover]

2 hours ago, arbitro said:

How could it be an obvious goalscoring opportunity? The Ipswich player had his back to goal and wasn't in control of the ball. 

Because Pears was in goal 🤨

[Herbie6590]

 

[dingles staying down 4ever]

9 hours ago, Upside Down said:

If you're in the box and you're not interfering with play then you shouldn't be on the pitch. 

Thank you Mr. Clough

[dingles staying down 4ever]

15 hours ago, roversfan99 said:

Denial of a goalscoring opportunity surely. The double jeopardy rule only counts if a genuine attempt is made to play the ball.

Clear penalty and probable yellow card but if the foul hadn't occurred and it had played out, the player had to control the ball then turn past Brittain and beat the keeper. It wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity and shows what a silly pull of a shirt it was.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

3 hours ago, dingles staying down 4ever said:

Clear penalty and probable yellow card but if the foul hadn't occurred and it had played out, the player had to control the ball then turn past Brittain and beat the keeper. It wasn't a clear goal scoring opportunity and shows what a silly pull of a shirt it was.

That’s what I was thinking - what sort of “ defender “ does that. Not even schoolboy level football.

[Penwortham Blue]

16 hours ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

That’s what I was thinking - what sort of “ defender “ does that. Not even schoolboy level football.

Callum Brittain often looks a schoolboy level footballer.