WickedWolfie
Just doesn't shut up
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2018
- Messages
- 42,280
- Reaction score
- 47,685
The problem is that they have charged GON not about the accuracy of his comments (very possibly to head off exactly the sort of analysis you offer) but how he went about engagement with the officials....So lets get this right:
1. Chirewa was in an onside position when the corner was taken.
2. Fabianski has full and clear view of the ball.
3. Fabianski then chooses to remain standing behind Chirewa and pushes him in the back.
4. In that split second Chirewa has to adjust his balance, thus he is not able to get back into an onside position for Kilman's header as a direct result of Fabianski's action
5. As a result of Fabianski's push in the back of an onside Chirewa the goalkeeper now has a perfect unhindered view of the ball throughout the play.
6. Chirewa makes no attempt to play the ball potentially distracting Fabianski, nor does he make any attempt to make contact with the keeper or prevent him from moving.
7. The Referee makes a subjective decision to award the goal, as in his opinion there is no need to disallow it.
8. Fabanski does not make a claim that Chirewa has hindered his view. He is the only person who can actually say that for certain.
9. Photographic and video evidence prove that Fabianski can see the ball at all times during the corner and subsequent header and is not blocked from attempting a save.
10. VAR then recommend he "reviews" his decision based on the evidence outlined in points 1-9 and consider the other subjective call that Chirewa hinders Fabianski's line of sight despite evidence that he doesn't.
11. The referee reviews clear evidence that the goal should stand and decides to agree with VAR and disallow the goal, thus despite no clear and obvious error the game is re-refereed from a remote location via a TV screen.
Now Mr Chairman at what point do you think that Mr O'Neil was not within his rights to question the competence and integrity of the PGMOL officials when all evidence points to the fact that they "Don't Know What They're Doing"