I disagree. Losing RAN had nothing to do with our sloppiness and bad passing in the second half.Losing RAN was probably the reason we were **** second half. Still felt we probably deserved a point over the 90, which ain't bad considering the forward situation.
True.Some of the stick Doc has had this season has been harsh, but he's cost us two massive goals this season (Cov and today). Big mistake to sign him on a three year deal.
Last week I had to agree to differ over the 'foul' by Kalvin Phillips on Gordon, so I think I'll cut out the middle man this time and just accept that we watch completely different games.Impeding the GK's vision from an offside position means you're interfering. The way you've worded it is incorrect.
Well that's not quite right, the point is he's blocking his vision from an offside position. So both the offside and the impairment of the vision are required to disallow the goal. The second one is *******s though, Fabianski doesn't have his view blocked and isn't remotely saving it anyway.Clearly some think the offside position is the reason for the decision. Its not, the idea is he's interfering with Fabianskis ability to react in some way. I will say again that just about every corner ever taken is a foul if that is. Some teams surround a keeper to prevent him coming for a cross or push him. I doubt anyone ever seen a goal disallowed for a similar decision.
The worst part of this is it's completely killed Hugo's confidence. He plays scared to lose his spot when he gets on.Hugo Bueno must be wandering how doc gets on in front of him!
Did you watch Hugo against Burnley? He didn't deserve to start today.The worst part of this is it's completely killed Hugo's confidence. He plays scared to lose his spot when he gets on.
To be fair GON says that they said that. I haven't seen anywhere that they publicly did so.
Yep. Fabianski has seen that all the way from Gomes' corner kick onto Kilman's head and off Kilman's head into his net. Shocker of a decisionWell that's not quite right, the point is he's blocking his vision from an offside position. So both the offside and the impairment of the vision are required to disallow the goal. The second one is *******s though, Fabianski doesn't have his view blocked and isn't remotely saving it anyway.
Fabianski’s reaction says it all. He’s going mad at his defenders for their marking. No offside appeal at all.Yep. Fabianski has seen that all the way from Gomes' corner kick onto Kilman's head and off Kilman's head into his net. Shocker of a decision
Unfair imo to judge him on that due to a lack of match sharpness.Did you watch Hugo against Burnley? He didn't deserve to start today.
Completely different situation though because those players aren’t offside
Post it here too, if our goal from a corner is disallowed why wasn’t theirs,? 2 West Ham players in the line of Sa’s sight of the ball. Isn’t that interference?
They’re impeding him thoCompletely different situation though because those players aren’t offside
So the wording of that suggests that it does in fact matter that Fabianski wouldn’t have got there. The obstruction has to prevent them being able to play the ball - not just that any obstruction is offside regardless.OFFSIDE if interfering with an opponent by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.
But that’s not what our goal was disallowed for? It’s because he was also offside.They’re impeding him tho
Hes deemed to be interfering with the goalkeeper, offside, obstruction, sane difference why wasn’t the ref sent to look at it?But that’s not what our goal was disallowed for? It’s because he was also offside.
It wasn’t offside from the corner, it was offside from Kilman’s header. If he was onside when Max heads it he can interfere all he wants.Hes deemed to be interfering with the goalkeeper, offside, obstruction, sane difference why wasn’t the ref sent to look at it?
Another first, surely the first time a goal has been given offside from a corner? I don’t remember it before
It's always the tell tale sign, player reactions. If he even remotely thought he'd been impeded or had his view blocked he'd have been straight after the refFabianski’s reaction says it all. He’s going mad at his defenders for their marking. No offside appeal at all.
Correct, which is exactly what I was getting at in the original post.So the wording of that suggests that it does in fact matter that Fabianski wouldn’t have got there. The obstruction has to prevent them being able to play the ball - not just that any obstruction is offside regardless.
The keeper pushing him out the way would be before Kilman headed the ball, he was given offside from Kilman's header for obstructing the keeper's view, which is *******sDidnt watch the match and have just seen the highlights on youtube knowing about the furore over the goal.
Thought it would be more of a headloss decision. The keeper has just pushed him out the way so he must be affected and from the angle it looks like the striker is on his toes.
I think its harsh but i can understand the decision in fairness. I thought it would be a stinker but its a bit meh one of those.
They’re impeding him tho
I get your point, mine is both are by the keeper, if Chiwera is affecting the keeper by just standing then the West Ham playing actually touching Sa must be looked at. Pedantic yes, but **** me if we are adhering to letters of law, then the contact on Sa is interfering as he isn’t attempting to head the ball , therefore foulIt wasn’t offside from the corner, it was offside from Kilman’s header. If he was onside when Max heads it he can interfere all he wants.
I don’t think it should have been disallowed either fwiw but it’s completely different to JWP scoring directly from a corner.
Read above, pedantic but letter of the law!!No one impeded Sa, he ****ed up a simple ball at a corner…….
GON says Moyes and Fabianski both said it was a 'scandalous decision'. I don't believe either would have criticised the decision and certainly not using the word scandalous.Gary says Moyes and Fabianski both thought it a poor decision.
Read above, pedantic but letter of the law!!
There’s enough to be legitimately upset about without making stuff up though!Read above, pedantic but letter of the law!!
Everyday fans and the WUMs in the comms threadOf course the everyday fan would think, 'ah well that's irrelevant whether he'd have saved it or not' but the truth is no- no it's not irrelevant.
Making stuff up?????There’s enough to be legitimately upset about without making stuff up though!
Everyday fans and the WUMs in the comms thread
Out of interest, what makes you think he'd make that up though?GON says Moyes and Fabianski both said it was a 'scandalous decision'. I don't believe either would have criticised the decision and certainly not using the word scandalous.
would i have got involved if i was the var, probably not. Just pop it in the dubious decision draw where its in that grey area. do i think its 'the worst decision ive ever seen' no i dont. sometimes they go for you sometimes they dont. We have been on the beneficial side of a few decisions recently such as Man Utd and Brentford cup that were all contentious.The keeper pushing him out the way would be before Kilman headed the ball, he was given offside from Kilman's header for obstructing the keeper's view, which is *******s
Every goal is different. Our lad was standing in an offside position right in front of the keeper and obviously interfering with play. If he'd been in an offside position, say standing by one of the posts the goal would have stood. I can't see how you or anyone else can't see this. You're letting your emotion affect your judgement.What utter tripe. If your argument were correct, there would be goals ruled out for the same offence every single week. Every week. The fact there isn’t and that Moyes and Fabianski both felt it a poor decision says it all.
Sa wasn’t impeded, so I don’t really understand what point you’re trying to make when it’s got nothing to do with why our goal was disallowed.Making stuff up?????
What utter tripe. If your argument were correct, there would be goals ruled out for the same offence every single week. Every week. The fact there isn’t and that Moyes and Fabianski both felt it a poor decision says it all.
So GON is a liar?GON says Moyes and Fabianski both said it was a 'scandalous decision'. I don't believe either would have criticised the decision and certainly not using the word scandalous.
What's that got to do with anything? He WAS interfering with play. He had to be, he was standing right in front of Fabianski.So the opposition manager and keeper say it wasn't and he wasn't and you still think you're right....!?