Has there been an explanation for this? None of the offside players seemed to be interfering with play but the (rather biased) commentary didn't really question it.

The BBC website didn't mention it at all in the report.

Given for Wood obstructing Pickford it said on commentary. Looked a soft one!

Had it gone to VAR 1st (if linesman had not lifted his flag) it would probably be allowed ... but as the Lino's flag went up VAR probably wouldn't over turn the Lino ...

Thats how I see it anway

Wood was definitely offside along with at least one other Burnley player - they were involved in play where Pickford was - no real foul but the header was from a player who was not offside - so they affected play therefore offside.

It was offside. Wood offside and was stood right in front of T-Rex arms.

exactly, Wood clearly offside blocks Pickford, correct decision. Probably the only one Atkinson got right all night

That's what I guessed it must have been but the replay didn't strike me as interfering any more than you see in loads of other games. He wasn't standing on Pickford blocking him at all.

Will have to watch the replay again.

Having rewatched it I think Pickford got incredibly lucky. He was getting nowhere near that ball but fortunately bumped into an offside player (who wasn't making any move to block him).

Arguably interfering with play but I don't think the outcome would have been different if Wood hadn't been there. I'm not sure how interfering is assessed though.

aggi wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 13, 2021 11:24 pm

Having rewatched it I think Pickford got incredibly lucky. He was getting nowhere near that ball but fortunately bumped into an offside player (who wasn't making any move to block him).

Arguably interfering with play but I don't think the outcome would have been different if Wood hadn't been there. I'm not sure how interfering is assessed though.

That sounds like Pickford was interfering with Wood!
We were very unlucky to have that disallowed. I think the linesman raised his flag because he was guessing and VAR didn’t overturn the decision because there was a (very) debatable interference.

Wood was in front of Pickford and offside. If not impeding certainly obscuring his view. I think it was fair enough tbh.

It was a good goal, ruled out as Pickford got clever and banged into Wood, who was offside. Pickford was out of position.

The rules state the interfering player has to be making a challenge, or blocking a challenge from a player who was also challenging for the ball.

Wood had given up challenging for the ball, so he has to be deemed to have blocked Pickford who was.

Pickford ran out like a maniac, bumped into Wood and wasn't in my view able to be anywhere near the ball to be 'challenging' for it. Wood also was not in his view, nor was he trying to block Pickford.

VAR bottled it, as alluded to above they really don't like going against the decision the ref (or assistant) gives at the game. Time to get rid of the old boys club at Stockley Park and get some people in who have no affiliation with the refs at the game.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:50 am

The rules state the interfering player has to be making a challenge, or blocking a challenge from a player who was also challenging for the ball.

This is not true. Read Law 11 of the game, you might still think it was a fair goal but at least you'd be doing so understanding the actual offside law

Wood was in an offside position, and Pickford bumped into him so Wood was clearly interfering. He doesn't need to have fouled Pickford to count as offside, just to have been in the way. If you get in the way of the goalkeeper, legally or otherwise, the linesman/ref aren't going to make value judgements about whether the keeper would have got to the ball.

What about the incident in the first half when their player blocks off Tarks at a corner and then wrestles him to the floor. That Everton player WAS NOT WATCHING THE BALL he was hell bent of stopping Tarks - a clear FOUL and therefore A PENALTY

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:04 am

Wood was in an offside position, and Pickford bumped into him so Wood was clearly interfering. He doesn't need to have fouled Pickford to count as offside, just to have been in the way. If you get in the way of the goalkeeper, legally or otherwise, the linesman/ref aren't going to make value judgements about whether the keeper would have got to the ball.

Yes, a foul by Wood would have been a different offence if he was trying to block Pickford(which he wasn't).

But if you read the rules they state one of two conditions have to be met for it to be called offside.

Either:

1. Wood has to be challenging for the ball in an offside position.
2. Pickford was stopped from challenging for the ball by a player in an offside position.

They gave it offside because of 2. But anyone can see that Pickford was nowhere near to challenge for the ball. He simply ran into Wood who was offside. Therefore my view is he wasn't stopped from challenging for the ball because he would never have gotten near enough for it to even be considered a challenge.

We were robbed

SussexDon1inIreland wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 14, 2021 10:51 am

What about the incident in the first half when their player blocks off Tarks at a corner and then wrestles him to the floor. That Everton player WAS NOT WATCHING THE BALL he was hell bent of stopping Tarks - a clear FOUL and therefore A PENALTY

You won't see a clearer penalty. As I wrote in my report, I can understand Atkinson not seeing it but for the life of me I can't see why it wasn't picked up by VAR. As for the offside goal, it's not offside.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:52 am

You won't see a clearer penalty. As I wrote in my report, I can understand Atkinson not seeing it but for the life of me I can't see why it wasn't picked up by VAR. As for the offside goal, it's not offside.

I watched the game again last night. It made me feel a bit better actually.

That was a clear penalty. I couldn't recall it because it was off the ball and I just saw the tumble in the box. Then I think the disallowed goal is very, very harsh. Yes Wood is offside but when a player moves several yards to run in to him, I don't think you should be deemed to be interfering.

I didn't hear Dyche making anything of either incident after the match? I hope he bangs on about this in the presser this week because we've had some harsh treatment there and need these decisions at the moment.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 10:59 am

I watched the game again last night. It made me feel a bit better actually.

That was a clear penalty. I couldn't recall it because it was off the ball and I just saw the tumble in the box. Then I think the disallowed goal is very, very harsh. Yes Wood is offside but when a player moves several yards to run in to him, I don't think you should be deemed to be interfering.

I didn't hear Dyche making anything of either incident after the match? I hope he bangs on about this in the presser this week because we've had some harsh treatment there and need these decisions at the moment.

Although we were at the penalty end I didn't see it at all. The first I heard of it was a text from jdrobbo who was sat at home watching. He said it was a clear pen and it was. As for the offside goal, I'm absolutely bemused that it could have been ruled out.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:02 am

Although we were at the penalty end I didn't see it at all. The first I heard of it was a text from jdrobbo who was sat at home watching. He said it was a clear pen and it was. As for the offside goal, I'm absolutely bemused that it could have been ruled out.

Both unfathomable when you watch them back. If either had been decisions against Everton, Sky would still be showing replays now!

So frustrating when we need these decisions at the moment.

NewClaret wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:09 am

Both unfathomable when you watch them back. If either had been decisions against Everton, Sky would still be showing replays now!

So frustrating when we need these decisions at the moment.

Just like they ranted about the Tarkowski challenge but didn't even show the one on Mee again other than live.

Regards the offside goal, If you watch it back the assistant was clearly shown mouthing "the first ball" or words to that effect, not sure what he was on about

I just think he got it wrong and VAR didnt over rule him.

If he hadnt have flagged I'm sure VAR wouldn't have over ruled it standing either.
I think it was a bit of "umpires call" type the cricket use

But remember - when the pressure came on, we took the mother of all batterings and it could have been 5 or 6. This without their best player.

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 15, 2021 11:13 am

Just like they ranted about the Tarkowski challenge but didn't even show the one on Mee again other than live.

Very good point. That looked a bad one and not like Mee to go down for so long. They did say VAR took a look but since VAR also took a look at the disallowed goal and presumably the PK situation, I’m not sure that counts for much.

On NBCSN when they showed the replay the two commentators didn't know what to say. There was an awkward pause and then Townsend just said "ah it's offside then". There was no drama over it like there is for the bigger teams. A single replay and no talk if it after in analysis.

It's an ongoing and noticeable trend now, there's a script that has to be followed when we play bigger teams and it always involves us as the underdog. No one ever feels we deserve to be ahead, or deserve to be in the league, they think we have no right and we're always lucky to get anything from a game.

It rubs off on the officials who are supposed to be neutral, and the guys in Stockley Park are in the same club as the guys on the pitch so when something is clearly wrong, they bottle it and don't help out.. surely with the mindset that it doesn't matter, after all it's just Burnley who should be losing anyway.

The European cup refereeing was a joy to watch, the VAR refs didn't always back the refs, they didn't feel they had to. Pre VAR days we'd just chalk this one off as another case of refs being biased against us, or not seeing the incident but with such easy access to replays and such obvious mistakes it's starting to get silly.

Well, that Villa goal was a disappointing lack of consistency.

Leicester had one disallowed last weekend against Brighton in identical circumstances - the lack of consistency is the most infuriating thing about this bunch of imbeciles.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:47 pm

https://www.footballinsider247.com/leic ... y-hackett/

But that’s the rules. As much as we don’t like it he was offside. I’m like a broken record I admit but I wish they’d scrap var it’s ruining the game in my opinion.

I’m trying to forget our misfortune, let the thread drop off , eh?

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 9:47 pm

https://www.footballinsider247.com/leic ... y-hackett/

What's cringeworthy is taking any notice of Hackett

beddie wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:06 pm

But that’s the rules. As much as we don’t like it he was offside. I’m like a broken record I admit but I wish they’d scrap var it’s ruining the game in my opinion.

Exactly - he was offside. I didn’t like if either, but surely that’s the point of VAR - to get to the correct decision, which in this case it did. So why is it ruining the game?

scouseclaret wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:36 pm

Exactly - he was offside. I didn’t like if either, but surely that’s the point of VAR - to get to the correct decision, which in this case it did. So why is it ruining the game?

For most people the excitement of your team scoring is the reason they go to games. It is the emotion of that split second that is robbed by VAR… the whole reason to watch live.

VAR is only being blamed because it overturned the decision. If it were overturned by the ref then they'd get the blame instead.

No one here complained when we were given a penalty and Bournemouth had a goal chalked off.

In this instance they got it right, just gotta accept that. If they consistently get decisions right it's only good for us.

Oh and it works both ways. The drama of a goal being disallowed is great for the game, and the opposition fans. We enjoyed it at Everton when their goal was disallowed and they enjoyed it when ours was.

They key factor is decisions being correct and increasing the accuracy and consistency of the decisions.

beddie wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:06 pm

But that’s the rules. As much as we don’t like it he was offside. I’m like a broken record I admit but I wish they’d scrap var it’s ruining the game in my opinion.

But is it the rules? When the rules say that if you're level, then you're onside, what does it mean? All my life it has been taken to mean that you can be in front, or behind, or level - one of three states. VAR assumes it to mean that you cannot be level, you must be either in front of behind, and "level" is just a shorthand for "don't know" for linesmen who cannot judge the width of an eyelash from 50 yards away. Which is it? The lawmakers need to tell us.

superdimitri wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:54 am

Oh and it works both ways. The drama of a goal being disallowed is great for the game, and the opposition fans.

I disagree entirely. If the drama of a disallowed goal was so great, then they might as well have a "roll the dice" button every 5 minutes and if you get a double 6, the opposition lose a goal. It's scoring goals that makes football what it is; no-one ever comes off saying "what a great disallowance that was".

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 11:15 pm

What's cringeworthy is taking any notice of Hackett

You can keep going, however, if you think that a toe end, invisible to a linesman, should rule out a goal, then I would prefer Mr Hackett's opinion.
Thanks.

beddie wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 27, 2021 10:06 pm

But that’s the rules. As much as we don’t like it he was offside. I’m like a broken record I admit but I wish they’d scrap var it’s ruining the game in my opinion.

But it is only the rule when they need it Beddie. Otherwise, they just say, "no obvious error".

They have lost the realism if football, in exchange for mathematics...when you need to deploy.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:32 am

But it is only the rule when they need it Beddie. Otherwise, they just say, "no obvious error".

They have lost the realism if football, in exchange for mathematics...when you need to deploy.

100% agree. They should only refer to VAR when the officials have made an obvious howler. In the case of offside, it should only be if there is clear daylight between the forward and defender, otherwise stick with the onfield decision.

dsr wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:16 am

But is it the rules? When the rules say that if you're level, then you're onside, what does it mean? All my life it has been taken to mean that you can be in front, or behind, or level - one of three states. VAR assumes it to mean that you cannot be level, you must be either in front of behind, and "level" is just a shorthand for "don't know" for linesmen who cannot judge the width of an eyelash from 50 yards away. Which is it? The lawmakers need to tell us.

Under the new VAR guidance a player is level, and therefore offside, if the two lines drawn overlap.

The problem with the Wood goal was that without VAR it would have been a goal, and no one would have batted an eyelid.

Wood's whole body was level apart from his foot, however he scored with his head. So where was the advantage? Would it have allowed the defender to get back across? No. Think we are losing the whole reason offside was brought in in the first place.

Just doesn't sit right with me that you can stand 10 yards offside, and then receive a cross off a wide player in the 2nd phase and score and it be allowed, but if you head it in (with your big toe being offside) it is chalked off, but that's where we are.

Ric_c makes a good point re what offside was ever "invented" for in the first place. It was all about people hanging around the opposition penalty area whilst the ball was actually at the other end, simply waiting for a long punt and a tap in. Somehow the present day law makers have to get back to the original concept of that because the guy who first dreamed up the offside law would (I suggest) be utterly mortified if he saw how it was now being used and how it was used on Saturday at Leicester is a great example of what I'm talking about.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:40 am

Under the new VAR guidance a player is level, and therefore offside, if the two lines drawn overlap.

But that's not what the law says. All laws apply equally at all levels of the game, both Premier League and Sunday School League. If the lawmakers intention is that "level" means no more than the width of a VAR line, then let them say so and let the lower league linesmen judge the width of a VAR line as best they can.

To my mind, VAR would work better if there were no lines drawn across the field and the VAR official judged "level" by eye in the same way as an ordinary linesman. He would still have a still photo to make it easy, but he would have to judge "level" in the same way it has been judged since the law was brought in.

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:30 am

You can keep going, however, if you think that a toe end, invisible to a linesman, should rule out a goal, then I would prefer Mr Hackett's opinion.
Thanks.

Hackett actually said it was offside. We are now in a third season when offsides are no longer based on what the assistant referee can see.

Rileybobs wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:40 am

Under the new VAR guidance a player is level, and therefore offside, if the two lines drawn overlap.

Whereas level is onside everywhere else and never judged on a big toe!

Ric_C wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:42 am

The problem with the Wood goal was that without VAR it would have been a goal, and no one would have batted an eyelid.

Wood's whole body was level apart from his foot, however he scored with his head. So where was the advantage? Would it have allowed the defender to get back across? No. Think we are losing the whole reason offside was brought in in the first place.

Just doesn't sit right with me that you can stand 10 yards offside, and then receive a cross off a wide player in the 2nd phase and score and it be allowed, but if you head it in (with your big toe being offside) it is chalked off, but that's where we are.

Like when Pickford is way out of position, so bumps into a retreating offside player, so a goal can get ruled out!

Or when that centre back, last season had his toe trodden on by a landing Wood, who had headed goalwards, so as he can't stop it....fall over at the last.

I'm not sure what rabbit hole you are in if you are arguing that Wood wasn't offside

I just hope that VAR keeps ruling out goals like that tbh, because they are offside

ClaretTony wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:21 am

Hackett actually said it was offside. We are now in a third season when offsides are no longer based on what the assistant referee can see.

He said it was technically offside rather than 'properly' offside, as we would understand it in the rest of football. Hence why it should not be offside.

Wood scored with an onside piece of his body!

That's the point we are making and of which you seem in denial.

Is it just because I wrote it?

IanMcL wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:33 am

Wood scored with an onside piece of his body!

That's the point we are making and of which you seem in denial.

That has never been part of the offside law. It doesn't matter which part of his body he uses to score. I'm not in any denial at all, he's quite simply offside at the time he heads as can be seen from the pictures. You are the one in denial, even as far as to make that ridiculous suggestion of cheating by believing it would have been given at the other end.