BFTG United (A)

[sandman]

As this interminably long conversation proves, if there's doubt then it shouldn't have been given.

It will take time for them to get VAR right. They've had it for ages in Spain and as Munuera Montero proved tonight, they still don't know how to use it properly.

[Zip]

Oh, you supporters.

Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.

This forum reflects that.

So the club are walking all over us are they by charging very low ST prices, introducing twenty’s plenty, subsidising the price of cup tickets and in my own personal capacity finding my key fob and sending it back in the post immediately at their expense earlier this week. Yeah I think you have a point.

We all know it’s crap at the moment but having had the glory years we are now going through a tough time. The players and management have underperformed for a few years now but even then we have enjoyed two Wembley show piece occasions within the past four years the like of which I could only have dreamt about as a little lad back in the 70’s.

It’s at times like these when confidence is at rock bottom where we have to support the team and hope that they can somehow scrape a win in the near future which sparks some kind of recovery. From there we can look to avoid relegation and seek to build for next season. It’s all about finishing 21st or above this season. If that’s achieved we can stay in what is one of the most competitive and well supported Leagues in Europe. Right now that’s enough for me.

[sandman]

Irrespective of whether it was a pen or not it’s about time one or two decisions went our way. The 50/50 calls are going against us. On the balance of probabilities that has to change pretty soon.

We haven't seemed to get many decisions whenever we've had Mr Atwell referee us since about 2008.

Almost like he's trying to make up for something...

[Snowflake Royal]

Thanks again for you input.

Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.

If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.

No. If you're arguing Fred is interfering with play before Richards makes his challenge you're just wrong. If that were the case, any player in an offside position would be committing an offside offence as soon as the ball is played even vaguely in their direction, whether they move for it, challenge the keeper or not

Fred isn't active until he's swinging at the ball. Lukaku would be active at the point he's interfering with a challenge.

So the sequence is:

1. Fred high boot - both players doing it and it's not dangerous - no foul
2. Lukaku affecting Richards - negligible, not given by the officials on the pitch, no clear and obvious error - can't be overruled as offside
3. Richards takes out Mata - missed by ref, clear and obvious error - overturned by VAR
4. Fred offside - only when he takes a swing at the ball, occurs after Richards offence so irrelevant

Penalty.

Simple.

No not any player. Many times not as you rightly say, but sometimes a player IS deemed to have caused an offence despite not touching the ball. It does happen. Yet some (not you) evidently still believe you have to actually touch a ball to have caused an offside offence. Not true:

"A player does not necessarily have to touch the ball to influence play. They are still offside if, in the opinion of the referee, they are judged to be: Interfering with an opponent: If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside."

(By offside the above, for the purposes of this discussion means committing an offside offence, not just being offside.)

So to reiterate the issue here: Fred was making a "gesture or movement" which 'deceived and distracted' the Reading team by running into that offside position, putting the Reading players (eg Richards) under the pressure to act in a way he would not normally necessarily have acted had Fred not made this run.

THis is of course open to interpretation and opinion and you may feel no RIchards would have tackled him even if Fred was not there. Fair enough. But this discussion centres around how much of a "deceiving" "distracting" "gesture or movement" this run was - and that arguably one could see it this way.

I would argue the fact that he made the run with the clear intent to receive the ball and take a shot suggests that the players would have felt the same, because this is exactly what happened moments later, so this was arguably a distracting run affecting the Reading players' ability to play the ball. Thus an offence. Thus the pass an offence. Thus arguably the foul occurred after an offence. Thus it would be arguably acceptable for the ref to not give the pen, totally independently of the Lukaku situation.

You're on a massive loser arguing Fred is interfering with an opponent. He isn't. Your argument for him interfering with an opponent is simply by his virtue of being present. As I said, if that were the case everyone ever in an offside position would be committing an offence which we know isn't the law.

You need to stop trying to twist the laws into a pretzel to try to get to a point where a decision was unjust when it was exactly right. It's sophistry. There isn't a referee in the country who'd give Fred offside before Richards makes the challenge just for him being nearby and moving towards the goal.

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

[Snowflake Royal]

I’m surprised anyone cares that much about the penalty decision as to spend pages and pages arguing about it.

Have to admit to not really liking VAR in its current form though. Who wants to sit through 3 minutes of the ref decided what to do? Not like in cricket where you can actually watch the decision making process, and actually can add to the atmosphere

It's just a discussion.

[Wycombe Royal]

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

[sandman]

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

Keith fukking Hackett needs to learn that Ian Royal is right about everything. Who the fukk does he think he is?

[Nameless]

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.

It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?

[Pepe the Horseman]

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

Keith fukking Hackett needs to learn that Ian Royal is right about everything. Who the fukk does he think he is?

[Wycombe Royal]

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.

It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?

Why is the VAR referee more qualified than Hackett? We also had a one of the best Assistant Referees in the world made the original call for offside. The simple fact is the offside occurred before the foul.

Just because it is VAR doesn't mean they will get it right and on this occasion they didn't. Also why aren't we using the pitchside screens so that the referee can view the incident again? I would rather VAR wasn't used at all and just leave it to the officials on the pitch.

But as I said it is irrelevant as the decision went against us.

[Platypuss]

Irrespective of whether it was a pen or not it’s about time one or two decisions went our way. The 50/50 calls are going against us. On the balance of probabilities that has to change pretty soon.

Not if we keep being culpable of generating far more 50:50s than we should.

[RoyalBlue]

Anyway, we're entering circular territory now and I've said all there is I can. If you still think the decision was wrong that's your loss.

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.

It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awarding a penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?

Not sure that the Culture Club drummer is more qualified than Hackett. If you look at their respective standings & reputation when actively refereeing I think Hackett outranked Moss?

Hackett's didn't argue that there wasn't a penalty offence, he stated that the offside occurred prior to that and therefore play was dead prior to any foul committed by Richards.

Regardless of which way VAR had ruled in this case, I'm still not a fan of its use, the delays it creates (particularly frustrating IMO for fans actually at games where it has been used) and some of the crazy situations it will inevitably create going forwards.

Yes, I bitched about incorrect decisions in the past and will probably continue to bitch about decisions that go against us when VAR isn't used but overall I prefer real time football with real time mistakes over the freeze frame VAR version that will still lead to mistakes/potential injustices as officials still have to make a decision.

[Snowflake Royal]

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.

It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?

Why is the VAR referee more qualified than Hackett? We also had a one of the best Assistant Referees in the world made the original call for offside. The simple fact is the offside occurred before the foul.

Just because it is VAR doesn't mean they will get it right and on this occasion they didn't. Also why aren't we using the pitchside screens so that the referee can view the incident again? I would rather VAR wasn't used at all and just leave it to the officials on the pitch.

But as I said it is irrelevant as the decision went against us.

Its not my opinion, it's the opinion of current trained officials.

Retired referee not trained in VAR suggesting an interpretation that doesn't get applied in matches regularly - on TV which frequently has an agenda to spark controversy about decisions where none exists just to fuel interest, or two current referees and typical interpretation of the offside law seen in most games based on a logical reading of the laws.

And the Lino is in no position to award a pen for Richards foul so him flagging is solely about whether Fred was offside when he shot... which he was. After the foul.

I know which one I'll go with thanks. And it's not the one pushed by the frequently looney 2ww1wc

[Platypuss]

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
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 or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used

or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

[Nameless]

Personally I would take Keith Hackett’s opinion over yours, he’s a little more qualified.

He says you are wrong.

However it is all irrelevant and the result is history.

You’d need Mr Hackett to clarify what he is talking about as his comment as it stands makes little sense.

It is entirely possible for the Lino to be correct in flagging Fred offside and VAR to also be correct in awardinga penalty.
VAR did not conclude that the offside flag was wrong, just that another offence had been missed by a different official.
And if you’d rather accept Hackett’s view because he is more qualified than HNA posters presumably you’d then accept the VAR referee’s view because he is more qualified than Hackett ?

Why is the VAR referee more qualified than Hackett? We also had a one of the best Assistant Referees in the world made the original call for offside. The simple fact is the offside occurred before the foul.

Just because it is VAR doesn't mean they will get it right and on this occasion they didn't. Also why aren't we using the pitchside screens so that the referee can view the incident again? I would rather VAR wasn't used at all and just leave it to the officials on the pitch.

But as I said it is irrelevant as the decision went against us.

Hackett has never officiated using VAR, hence in the scenario here he has no relevant experience, training of qualification.
Further more his comments fail to actually address the specifics of the situation and are ambiguous.
You need to be clear which offside you think happened before the foul, because it certainly wasn’t the Fred one and stating it is a ‘fact’ doesn’t change what actually happened.
Agree that VAR has serious flaws, but essentially TV has destroyed the ability of officials to do their job .

[Hound]

Did anyone see that O Shea was going to come on, but injured himself warming up? Isn't this the second time this has happened this year?

Ridiculous really - he has to be moved on. If you can't rely on his fitness and being able to do his job in just the situation you may need him, he is even more pointless

[Snowball]

Did anyone see that O Shea was going to come on, but injured himself warming up? Isn't this the second time this has happened this year?

Ridiculous really - he has to be moved on. If you can't rely on his fitness and being able to do his job in just the situation you may need him, he is even more pointless

I missed that.

I presumed him not being brought on meant he was finished
as he was the obvious replacement for Ilori

[Old Man Andrews]

Did anyone see that O Shea was going to come on, but injured himself warming up? Isn't this the second time this has happened this year?

Ridiculous really - he has to be moved on. If you can't rely on his fitness and being able to do his job in just the situation you may need him, he is even more pointless

Agree. Abysmal decision by Clement to bring him in in the summer. O'Shea, McShane and Meyler are all on my to go list.

[Stranded]

Keith Hackett

"I am the biggest supporter of VAR. In England however we are doing our best to make something simple difficult. Darren Cann one of the Worlds top Assistant referees correctly flagged for offside. VAR Moss decides to get involved and say PK. Oh dear check sequence of events"

Halsey agrees. Wrong decision.

And Mark Clattenburg says VAR got it right and given that he is the most recently active ref and still works in refereeing you could argue that is more likely to be the most accurate assessment.

Anyway, overall a decent if fairly toothless performance which if repeated regularly in the League (with some end product) should see us get out of the bottom 3 - the big challenge is consistancy which we just don't have.

Other piece of good news (for me at least) is given Bolton won we are likely to only have 2 games in Jan now (unless rearranged for the following midweek), which gives Gomes plenty of time to work with the squad to bed in this new style and hopefully refresh the squad for the run in.

[genome]

Oh, you supporters.

Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.

This forum reflects that.

If football makes you this miserable, why do you bother?