Is there a Man City bias?

[Fordy62]

On the receiving end of another refereeing shocker today against Wolves. Clearly offside and not given. 

It’s got the point where almost every single decision benefits them. 

Is there something fishy going on? It just seems to be happening far too regularly. 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, Fordy62 said:

On the receiving end of another refereeing shocker today against Wolves. Clearly offside and not given. 

It’s got the point where almost every single decision benefits them. 

Is there something fishy going on? It just seems to be happening far too regularly. 

Offside?  When?

Cant be offside from a corner, so the Q becomes when does the interfering take place.

Don't get me wrong, I really wanted it to be disallowed (Liverpool fan here), but if there was to be a chalking off of the goal it would’ve been for a foul on the keeper as the ball came in, not offside.  That would be a really soft foul imho.

[Super]

4 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

On the receiving end of another refereeing shocker today against Wolves. Clearly offside and not given. 

It’s got the point where almost every single decision benefits them. 

Is there something fishy going on? It just seems to be happening far too regularly. 

Correct decision for me.

[Sleepy1968]

6 minutes ago, Fordy62 said:

On the receiving end of another refereeing shocker today against Wolves. Clearly offside and not given. 

It’s got the point where almost every single decision benefits them. 

Is there something fishy going on? It just seems to be happening far too regularly. 

Get yourself a move to the Fraud Squad and get that investigation going!

[W-S-M Seagull]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Offside?  When?

Cant be offside from a corner, so the Q becomes when does the interfering take place.

Don't get me wrong, I really wanted it to be disallowed (Liverpool fan here), but if there was to be a chalking off of the goal it would’ve been for a foul on the keeper as the ball came in, not offside.  That would be a really soft foul imho.

Amazing that many people in my friendship circles don't know that you can't be offside from a corner. 

From my perspective when Silva was in an offside position, he moved out of the way and wasn't interfering with the goalkeeper or his line of sight so therefore the decision was correct. 

It looked like they had practiced that on the training ground. 

Edited Sunday at 15:29 by W-S-M Seagull

[W-S-M Seagull]

"Stones’ goal was disallowed on-field due to Bernardo Silva being in an offside position and in the goalkeeper’s line of vision. The VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn’t in the line of vision and had no impact on the goalkeeper and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and a goal was awarded."

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Amazing that many people in my friendship circles don't know that you can't be offside from a corner. 

From my perspective when Silva was in an offside position, he moved out of the way and wasn't interfering with the goalkeeper or his line of sight so therefore the decision was correct. 

It looked like they had practiced that on the training ground. 

Like Max v Swansea, teams need to wise-up to a player stood on the keeper.  They need a defender to manoeuvre him out the way, not leave it to the keeper.  It’s not like they had men on the posts wasting resource.

 

1 minute ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

"Stones’ goal was disallowed on-field due to Bernardo Silva being in an offside position and in the goalkeeper’s line of vision. The VAR deemed Bernardo Silva wasn’t in the line of vision and had no impact on the goalkeeper and recommended an on-field review. The referee overturned his original decision and a goal was awarded."

Was it disallowed infield, I only saw the shenanigans afterwards?

[Roe]

It's a difficult one but I think Wolves can feel hard done by. For me if you're that close to the keeper in the 6 yard box and offside, that should be offside. Regardless of how tall the player is or how quickly they can jump out of the way

But it's not the worst decision ever either. I think people will feel justified in complaining whatever decision is given there

[GrahamC]

No real interest in the Prem but you’re pretty naive if you don’t think them & Liverpool get decisions in their favour out of kilter with all the rest.

Mind you, United under Ferguson was another level of bias.

[bearded_red]

No.

[downendcity]

1 minute ago, Davefevs said:

Like Max v Swansea, teams need to wise-up to a player stood on the keeper.  They need a defender to manoeuvre him out the way, not leave it to the keeper.  It’s not like they had men on the posts wasting resource

The keeper was blocked by a Man C player - that used to be called obstruction and was penalised by an indirect free kick.

The irony is that if a defender"manoeuvred" him out of the way, Sod's Law says that the ref would penalise him and award Man City a penalty.

 

 

 

 

[richwwtk]

23 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Cant be offside from a corner

Is that actually a rule or just perceived wisdom as the ball is effectively being played from the dead ball line?

We actually had this discussion at a match the other day, wondering if it would be possible to be offside from a corner by standing right on the goal line while the ball was placed away from the dead ball line but still overhanging the quadrant?

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, downendcity said:

The keeper was blocked by a Man C player - that used to be called obstruction and was penalised by an indirect free kick.

The irony is that if a defender"manoeuvred" him out of the way, Sod's Law says that the ref would penalise him and award Man City a penalty.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, tend to agree re obstruction.

[Davefevs]

Just now, richwwtk said:

Is that actually a rule or just perceived wisdom as the ball is effectively being played from the dead ball line?

We actually had this discussion at a match the other day, wondering if it would be possible to be offside from a corner by standing right on the goal line while the ball was placed away from the dead ball line but still overhanging the quadrant?

It’s the rules.  The ball can’t go forward….okay technically (as per your scenario) it can, but them's the rules.

[downendcity]

2 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Yeah, tend to agree re obstruction.

Is obstruction still an offence Dave?

Can't remember the last time I saw it given.

[Davefevs]

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Is obstruction still an offence Dave?

Can't remember the last time I saw it given.

https://www.footballrules.com/offences-sanctions/obstruction/

[TheReds]

7 minutes ago, downendcity said:

The irony is that if a defender"manoeuvred" him out of the way, Sod's Law says that the ref would penalise him and award Man City a penalty.

When was the last time a penalty was given for such a move? There is jostling around a keeper at most corners, this happens pretty much every game, and I cannot remember a single penalty being given for what you are describing.

Todays incident he did obstruct the keeper initially, but probably got out of the way in time before it was a definite foul imo. I think it was the correct decision and would class it as a soft one if it was disallowed (not to say next week the same thing would have a goal disallowed, because there is no consistency).

[W-S-M Seagull]

5 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

Is that actually a rule or just perceived wisdom as the ball is effectively being played from the dead ball line?

We actually had this discussion at a match the other day, wondering if it would be possible to be offside from a corner by standing right on the goal line while the ball was placed away from the dead ball line but still overhanging the quadrant?

 

3. No offence

There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:

• a goal kick
• a throw-in
• a corner kick

 

In your scenario, whilst it is theoretically possible for a player to be ahead of two opponents, the law states that you can't be offside from a corner kick. So even in your scenario it wouldn't be offside. Similar to a throw in. 

[grifty]

9 minutes ago, richwwtk said:

Is that actually a rule or just perceived wisdom as the ball is effectively being played from the dead ball line?

We actually had this discussion at a match the other day, wondering if it would be possible to be offside from a corner by standing right on the goal line while the ball was placed away from the dead ball line but still overhanging the quadrant?

You can’t be offside if the ball goes out of play - corner, throw-in or goal kick 

[W-S-M Seagull]

26 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Like Max v Swansea, teams need to wise-up to a player stood on the keeper.  They need a defender to manoeuvre him out the way, not leave it to the keeper.  It’s not like they had men on the posts wasting resource.

 

Was it disallowed infield, I only saw the shenanigans afterwards?

Yea I didn't realise it was ruled out initially. I thought VAR recommended a review and the ref refused to over turn the decision. But yea it was the other way around. 

[TV Tom]

Linesman made the right decision as he was in an offside position and wouldn’t of known if he was interfering or not, right decision by VAR to overturn

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 minute ago, TV Tom said:

Linesman made the right decision as he was in an offside position and wouldn’t of known if he was interfering or not, right decision by VAR to overturn

I'm not sure you can flag for an offside if you're unsure?

[forbespm]

Correct decision 

[Severn Beach Pigeon]

44 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Offside?  When?

Cant be offside from a corner, so the Q becomes when does the interfering take place.

Don't get me wrong, I really wanted it to be disallowed (Liverpool fan here), but if there was to be a chalking off of the goal it would’ve been for a foul on the keeper as the ball came in, not offside.  That would be a really soft foul imho.

I've only seen a still, but is the player not interfering by blocking the keepers vision as Stones makes the header?

That would be offside.

[Jose]

Just seen it. How is this even up for debate? It’s not offside? Wasn't even in the line of the goalkeeper? 

[Davefevs]

2 minutes ago, Severn Beach Pigeon said:

I've only seen a still, but is the player not interfering by blocking the keepers vision as Stones makes the header?

That would be offside.

No he’d moved away to the left / keeper’s right by then.

(pains me to be unbiased)

[TV Tom]

14 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'm not sure you can flag for an offside if you're unsure?

Can’t say I know the exact rule if I’m honest but he was definitely in an offside position so no problem with the linesman’s flag, ultimately the right decision though which is what VAR is there for

[Baldyman]

1 hour ago, Fordy62 said:

On the receiving end of another refereeing shocker today against Wolves. Clearly offside and not given. 

It’s got the point where almost every single decision benefits them. 

Is there something fishy going on? It just seems to be happening far too regularly. 

It beggars belief that the keeper has to shove the Man City player off of him about 1.5 seconds before the ball flies into the net yet somehow he’s not interfering with the keeper ??? I think some scrutinising of the officials bank accounts might be needed ??? 

[TV Tom]

50 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

No real interest in the Prem but you’re pretty naive if you don’t think them & Liverpool get decisions in their favour out of kilter with all the rest.

Mind you, United under Ferguson was another level of bias.

The ref at Anfield is desperate for a Liverpool win

[W-S-M Seagull]

Just now, Baldyman said:

It beggars belief that the keeper has to shove the Man City player off of him about 1.5 seconds before the ball flies into the net yet somehow he’s not interfering with the keeper ??? I think some scrutinising of the officials bank accounts might be needed ??? 

Why does it? At the corner Silva had every single right to challenge the goalkeeper for position because you can't be offside from a corner. 

Challenging the keeper doesn't automatically = foul. 

When the ball was headed Silva had moved our of the way. 

Throwing around corruption allegations for not understanding the rules yourself is a bit unfair. 

[Super]

5 minutes ago, TV Tom said:

The ref at Anfield is desperate for a Liverpool win

Correct decision with Jones although Sanchez was very fortunate 

[Robbored]

Disappointing tho it was there was nothing wrong with the Man City winner. As others have said you can’t be offside from a corner and the goalkeeper wasn’t obscured or challenged in any way.

[Cowshed]

19 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Challenging the keeper doesn't automatically = foul. 

When the ball was headed Silva had moved our of the way. 

Throwing around corruption allegations for not understanding the rules yourself is a bit unfair. 

Under the laws of the game a player has to be in playable distance of the ball to challenge the keeper. When the ball is delivered and prior to the ball being headed Silva is clearly challenging the keeper. Subjectively Silva could be offside when Stones heads the ball, as Silva will not have left the keepers vision, Stones will be in the keeper's primary focus.

 

 

 

Edited Sunday at 16:47 by Cowshed

[Midred]

1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

No real interest in the Prem but you’re pretty naive if you don’t think them & Liverpool get decisions in their favour out of kilter with all the rest.

Mind you, United under Ferguson was another level of bias.

I'm not going to blow the whistle until utd have scored the winning goal! (In the ref's head!)

,

[Severn Beach Pigeon]

38 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

No he’d moved away to the left / keeper’s right by then.

(pains me to be unbiased)

Fair enough 

The still I saw was from the side so was hard to judge exactly where they were.

[Markthehorn]

VAR been very busy today !

[Midred]

7 minutes ago, Markthehorn said:

VAR been very busy today !

Almost like they could do away with the officials at the game and play football manager!

[Markthehorn]

13 minutes ago, Midred said:

Almost like they could do away with the officials at the game and play football manager!

Almost a lottery really as to who the refs are and what are they thinking .

[Midred]

I understand that rules are rules but I do wonder that they are too specific sometimes. Our players get booked if they kick the ball away preventing the restart of play. However it seems ok to pick the ball up and walk off with it or stand in front of a player about to take a free kick. 

[ZiderMeUp]

1 hour ago, richwwtk said:

Is that actually a rule or just perceived wisdom as the ball is effectively being played from the dead ball line?

We actually had this discussion at a match the other day, wondering if it would be possible to be offside from a corner by standing right on the goal line while the ball was placed away from the dead ball line but still overhanging the quadrant?

Not offside whenever ball comes back into play after ball has gone out.  Corners, goal kicks throw ins

[Maltshoveller]

1 hour ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I'm not sure you can flag for an offside if you're unsure?

He was well off side so the linesman was right to raise his flag 

The ref was right to give the goal

When the player became offside he was not interfering with the keeper

[hinsleburg]

29 minutes ago, Maltshoveller said:

He was well off side so the linesman was right to raise his flag 

The ref was right to give the goal

When the player became offside he was not interfering with the keeper

I agree, actually thought it was one of the better uses of VAR. 

What didn't help this was the initial delay in giving the offside and the useless commentary team not realising it had been disallowed. Changes the narrative when you hear 'they're going to the screen, you know what this means' followed up by 'he's decided not to take the VAR advice'.

Don't think it was controversial at all, clear goal and good officiating. (I don't think the linesman flags pre VAR rightly or wrongly) Goes without saying what would have helped is hearing the audio and discussions between officials 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

In one of my games I giving that as a foul on the keeper then when Stones touches the ball Silva looks to be offending and a millisecond later he isnt and this is not what var was meant to be for.  

[2015]

All I know is they're absolutely unbearable.

[Red Cyril 2]

3 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Amazing that many people in my friendship circles don't know that you can't be offside from a corner. 

From my perspective when Silva was in an offside position, he moved out of the way and wasn't interfering with the goalkeeper or his line of sight so therefore the decision was correct. 

It looked like they had practiced that on the training ground. 

Yep think that spot on 

[Harry]

7 hours ago, Davefevs said:

It’s the rules.  The ball can’t go forward….okay technically (as per your scenario) it can, but them's the rules.

Whilst this is correct for the corner (can’t be offside), in open play the ball doesn’t have to be played forward in order to be offside. 
There was a goal last year or so, might have been an international match possibly, where the ball was played backwards but as the receiving player came back from an offside position to receive it,  it was indeed offside. 

[W-S-M Seagull]

15 hours ago, Cowshed said:

Under the laws of the game a player has to be in playable distance of the ball to challenge the keeper. When the ball is delivered and prior to the ball being headed Silva is clearly challenging the keeper. Subjectively Silva could be offside when Stones heads the ball, as Silva will not have left the keepers vision, Stones will be in the keeper's primary focus.

 

 

 

Considering it was a corner then it's possible the corner taker could have been aiming for Silva (unlikely but possible) so that meets the criteria for playable distance for me. 

It's only when Stones heads the ball does Silva become offside and by that point Silva had moved away from the keeper and was not in the keepers line of vision. 

[The Journalist]

Genuinely baffled there’s been so much fuss about this. I thought the officials got it spot on (and generally had a really good game, not that that’s ever said).

There’s absolutely nothing in the contact between Sa and Silva either - for what it’s worth, Silva is allowed to stand wherever he wants when the corner comes in, he’s not obliged to move out of the keeper’s way. As the cross comes in he backs in ever so slightly, the keeper moves him out of the way and by the time the header comes in he’s completely out of the way.

Worth saying there were absolutely no complaints from Sa at the time either. If he was actually unfairly obstructed he would’ve gone ballistic.

[Cowshed]

10 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

Considering it was a corner then it's possible the corner taker could have been aiming for Silva (unlikely but possible) so that meets the criteria for playable distance for me. 

 

Being in the centre of the goal, thirty five metres away from the ball makes it impossible for Silva to be in a playable distance of the ball. The keeper also has a very different criteria, because of the keepers unique position on the pitch. This is due to the keeper obviously being able to use his hands in the area, but also due to safety. 

15 hours ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

 for not understanding the rules yourself is a bit unfair. 

It appears you do not understand what are laws, not the rules of the game.

[Davefevs]

35 minutes ago, The Journalist said:

Genuinely baffled there’s been so much fuss about this. I thought the officials got it spot on (and generally had a really good game, not that that’s ever said).

There’s absolutely nothing in the contact between Sa and Silva either - for what it’s worth, Silva is allowed to stand wherever he wants when the corner comes in, he’s not obliged to move out of the keeper’s way. As the cross comes in he backs in ever so slightly, the keeper moves him out of the way and by the time the header comes in he’s completely out of the way.

Worth saying there were absolutely no complaints from Sa at the time either. If he was actually unfairly obstructed he would’ve gone ballistic.

The officials on the pitch disallowed it didn’t they?

[The Journalist]

4 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

The officials on the pitch disallowed it didn’t they?

Yeah - but the linesman had to put his flag up, didn’t he? From his angle Silva was definitely offside and the flag going up didn’t affect the outcome.

I thought it was fair enough the flag went up and then they made the right considered decision to allow it.

When I say officials I mean all of them collectively in terms of how they got there!

Edited yesterday at 08:48 by The Journalist

[W-S-M Seagull]

21 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

Being in the centre of the goal, thirty five metres away from the ball makes it impossible for Silva to be in a playable distance of the ball. The keeper also has a very different criteria, because of the keepers unique position on the pitch. This is due to the keeper obviously being able to use his hands in the area, but also due to safety. 

It appears you do not understand what are laws, not the rules of the game.

It's entirely possible for the corner taker to kick the ball and aim for Silva and for Silva to score and therefore that gives Silva the right to challange the GK for position. This really is a basic thing in football. Goals get scored from corners every single day but somehow its impossible for Silva to score? The GK does not have an absolute right to have position. 

Silva is not offside when the kick is taken as you cannot be offside from a corner so he therefore has the right to challange the keeper. When he doesn't have that right (when he becomes offside) after a push from the goalkeeper he moves our of the way. At the point Sa pushes Silva he is not offside. He only becomes offside when Stones heads the ball forward. 

[Davefevs]

Just now, The Journalist said:

Yeah - but the linesman had to put his flag up, didn’t he? From his angle Silva was definitely offside and the flag going up didn’t affect the outcome.

I thought it was fair enough the flag went up and then they made the right considered decision to allow it.

They are mic’d up, didn’t need to flag.

[Cowshed]

17 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

It's entirely possible for the corner taker to kick the ball and aim for Silva and for Silva to score and therefore that gives Silva the right to challange the GK for position.

You cannot challenge the keeper for a ball that has not been delivered. Silva cannot challenge for the keepers position, he must challenge for the ball. 

[spudski]

Let's face it, the rules of the game and how they are interpreted in the box are bonkers.

From set pieces like corners and free kicks, so much goes on in the box, that done outside in open play, would be given as a free kick. 

Yet during open play in the box...the slightest touch by a defender, or ball touching hand, is often given as a penalty.

 

 

[Rob k]

13 minutes ago, spudski said:

Let's face it, the rules of the game and how they are interpreted in the box are bonkers.

From set pieces like corners and free kicks, so much goes on in the box, that done outside in open play, would be given as a free kick. 

Yet during open play in the box...the slightest touch by a defender, or ball touching hand, is often given as a penalty.

 

 

Exactly - Refs themselves when it comes to giving a decision in the box. 

[cotswoldred2]

18 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

On the receiving end of another refereeing shocker today against Wolves. Clearly offside and not given. 

It’s got the point where almost every single decision benefits them. 

Is there something fishy going on? It just seems to be happening far too regularly. 

Clearly? No and I think you terming it 'shocking, 'fishy' and 'bias', is totally not excepting Wolves are just not good enough and straws and clutching might be a better use of the antonym.

[Rob k]

1 minute ago, cotswoldred2 said:

Clearly? No and I think you terming it 'shocking, 'fishy' and 'bias', is totally not excepting Wolves are just not good enough and straws and clutching might be a better use of the antonym.

Also, and I’m no fan of Man City, Liverpool or Arsenal by any stretch, but I’d imagine they get more decisions in the opposing box as funnily enough they are in the opposing box far more often than other teams!!

[Mendip Broadwalk]

18 hours ago, Roe said:

It's a difficult one but I think Wolves can feel hard done by. For me if you're that close to the keeper in the 6 yard box and offside, that should be offside. Regardless of how tall the player is or how quickly they can jump out of the way

But it's not the worst decision ever either. I think people will feel justified in complaining whatever decision is given there

Missed this one it doesnt matter how tall a player is it matters that he is there in the keepers face but getting away from that Silva backs into the GK trying to impede him which is an offence , being in an offside position and diving into a still offside position a millisecond later i'm giving that as offside as well. 

Its not the worst but var shouldnt get all over it as its not clear and obvious and this is where how var is making a game with differing laws, only at the top are these offsides with a players half a metre away from the keeper in clearly offside positions not given. This is no good for the game, give that goal in many leagues and?? Youve got problems reffing the game maybe even dangerous problems at some places.  The game should be have no two tier laws!! 

 

[spudski]

38 minutes ago, Rob k said:

Also, and I’m no fan of Man City, Liverpool or Arsenal by any stretch, but I’d imagine they get more decisions in the opposing box as funnily enough they are in the opposing box far more often than other teams!!

These are last seasons detailed stats.

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/38196464/how-var-decisions-affect-premier-league-club-2023-24

[MarcusX]

18 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Like Max v Swansea, teams need to wise-up to a player stood on the keeper.  They need a defender to manoeuvre him out the way, not leave it to the keeper.  It’s not like they had men on the posts wasting resource.

 

Was it disallowed infield, I only saw the shenanigans afterwards?

Different to the Max one IMO though because the player on Max was still holding him when the ball was played so in my view should have been offside, and probably would have been with VAR.

Stones goal probably isn't offside, as he;s out the way by the time Stones heads it

[Oh Louie louie]

Refs were certainly bias to Liverpool and Manchester United when they were winning everything, refs wouldn't even think about giving a penalty at old Trafford 

[Davefevs]

1 minute ago, MarcusX said:

Different to the Max one IMO though because the player on Max was still holding him when the ball was played so in my view should have been offside, and probably would have been with VAR.

Stones goal probably isn't offside, as he;s out the way by the time Stones heads it

I think Ronald was a case of “was he fouling Max”, not offside per se.

[downendcity]

1 hour ago, spudski said:

Let's face it, the rules of the game and how they are interpreted in the box are bonkers.

From set pieces like corners and free kicks, so much goes on in the box, that done outside in open play, would be given as a free kick. 

Yet during open play in the box...the slightest touch by a defender, or ball touching hand, is often given as a penalty.

Absolutely spudski.

It does seem that on filed officials and VAR are very selective about making decisions and this is not helped by the way that in recent times there seems more and more prescription around the laws/rules are applied.

For example, take handball inside the penalty area. This might have changed - again!- but it was the case that if an attacker completely accidentally handled the ball in the opposition penalty area and a goal resulted, then it was penalised as handball and the goal was/is dissallowed. However, if a defender handled the ball similarly i.e. completely accidentally inside his own penalty area, then it is/was not penalised. Surely, if it's handball then  how can it be qualified on the basis of who commits the offence and where on the pitch it happens?

As for the Man city goal, everything indicates that the linesman flagged for offside, which, as has been pointed out, you cannot be from a corner. However, the Man City player - Silva? - clearly backs into the Wolves' keeper on the line, thereby preventing him from attacking the corner.

In Law 12 it says:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

The ball was definitely not within playing distance of Silva, whose initial movement was away from the track of the incoming corner, and he did move into the opponent's path to obstruct the keeper.

In my view it should have been penalised, but, as you rightly say, referees seem to have a blind spot when it comes to penalising actions inside the box which, if anywhere else to the pitch, would be penalised, and for far less contact .

[spudski]

9 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Absolutely spudski.

It does seem that on filed officials and VAR are very selective about making decisions and this is not helped by the way that in recent times there seems more and more prescription around the laws/rules are applied.

For example, take handball inside the penalty area. This might have changed - again!- but it was the case that if an attacker completely accidentally handled the ball in the opposition penalty area and a goal resulted, then it was penalised as handball and the goal was/is dissallowed. However, if a defender handled the ball similarly i.e. completely accidentally inside his own penalty area, then it is/was not penalised. Surely, if it's handball then  how can it be qualified on the basis of who commits the offence and where on the pitch it happens?

As for the Man city goal, everything indicates that the linesman flagged for offside, which, as has been pointed out, you cannot be from a corner. However, the Man City player - Silva? - clearly backs into the Wolves' keeper on the line, thereby preventing him from attacking the corner.

In Law 12 it says:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

The ball was definitely not within playing distance of Silva, whose initial movement was away from the track of the incoming corner, and he did move into the opponent's path to obstruct the keeper.

In my view it should have been penalised, but, as you rightly say, referees seem to have a blind spot when it comes to penalising actions inside the box which, if anywhere else to the pitch, would be penalised, and for far less contact .

To add to that...defenders train and are coached to move and block the run of the opponents.

[BobBobBobbin]

I don't think there is a specific Man City bias.

But there has always been an unconscious bias towards "bigger" clubs. We see it here very often when we come up against the bigger clubs in this division. A baffling inconsistency. 

Part of me thinks that's because the smaller clubs/lesser teams have to play a different/more combative style of play, too. 

 

The one thing that is evident is that for all Arsenal fans whinging for the last 3 years, they get away with a hell of a lot of piss poor behaviour. There's no bias against them, despite their protestations. 

[Mendip Broadwalk]

27 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Absolutely spudski.

It does seem that on filed officials and VAR are very selective about making decisions and this is not helped by the way that in recent times there seems more and more prescription around the laws/rules are applied.

For example, take handball inside the penalty area. This might have changed - again!- but it was the case that if an attacker completely accidentally handled the ball in the opposition penalty area and a goal resulted, then it was penalised as handball and the goal was/is dissallowed. However, if a defender handled the ball similarly i.e. completely accidentally inside his own penalty area, then it is/was not penalised. Surely, if it's handball then  how can it be qualified on the basis of who commits the offence and where on the pitch it happens?

As for the Man city goal, everything indicates that the linesman flagged for offside, which, as has been pointed out, you cannot be from a corner. However, the Man City player - Silva? - clearly backs into the Wolves' keeper on the line, thereby preventing him from attacking the corner.

In Law 12 it says:

IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent.

 

The ball was definitely not within playing distance of Silva, whose initial movement was away from the track of the incoming corner, and he did move into the opponent's path to obstruct the keeper.

In my view it should have been penalised, but, as you rightly say, referees seem to have a blind spot when it comes to penalising actions inside the box which, if anywhere else to the pitch, would be penalised, and for far less contact .

As a ref of humble level and ability i would point out that people are comparing restarts to open play and the two are not the same and players behaviours but also the laws alter at restarts and for situations in the box. Restarts open play the two are not the same and neither are any two incidents you put the laws on each one evenly.  

For this Wolves Man City incident i see two offences foul on keeper and offside.Obstructing the the keeper i generally warn players first dont obstruct then if it happens again go foul. 

Accidental handball by a defender in the box with the arm in a unnatural position is a penalty. Accidental handball by a defender in the box with the arm in a natural position most times wont prevent there being a goal scoring opportunity no real advantage  then you have accidental hand ball by an attacker leading to a goal scored = massive advantage goal gained. See them differences?? Thats why the two are not treated the same.

 

Edited yesterday at 11:22 by Mendip Broadwalk

[ExiledAjax]

7 minutes ago, BobBobBobbin said:

But there has always been an unconscious bias towards "bigger" clubs. We see it here very often when we come up against the bigger clubs in this division. A baffling inconsistency. 

Part of me thinks that's because the smaller clubs/lesser teams have to play a different/more combative style of play, too. 

https://pca.st/episode/3bad739a-f83f-493b-bfe6-2124b649bc68

Guardian Weekly did a fascinating pod on this in April 2023. From memory referees admitted exactly this, that they have this conscious extra thought when they get the "big games" and where they are conscious that they are under extra scrutiny and their decisions might have big consequences.

Edited yesterday at 11:17 by ExiledAjax

[spudski]

25 minutes ago, Mendip Broadwalk said:

As a ref of humble level and ability i would point out that people are comparing restarts to open play and the two are not the same and players behaviours but also the laws alter at restarts and for situations in the box. Restarts open play the two are not the same and neither are any two incidents you put the laws on each one evenly.  

For this Wolves Man City incident i see two offences foul on keeper and offside.Obstructing the the keeper i generally warn players first dont obstruct then if it happens again go foul. 

Accidental handball by a defender in the box with the arm in a unnatural position is a penalty. Accidental handball by a defender in the box with the arm in a natural position most times wont prevent there being a goal scoring opportunity no real advantage  then you have accidental hand ball by an attacker leading to a goal scored = massive advantage goal gained. See them differences?? Thats why the two are not treated the same.

 

The unnatural arm position is a farce.

When running, turning, balancing, trying to jump high...what do you naturally do?

You use your arms laterally for balance.

You don't naturally put your arms down by your sides, or behind your back. That's totally unnatural. 

We don't run and turn with arms down.

We don't ' pogo' when jumping. 

[OJ009]

3 hours ago, The Journalist said:

Worth saying there were absolutely no complaints from Sa at the time either. If he was actually unfairly obstructed he would’ve gone ballistic.

Probably as the on field decision was in his favour he would have no reason to go ballistic.