Reckons both calls were correct. The moving ball was so minimal you'd need a microscope to see it so it would have been hard to spot. Mitrovic was clearly offside. Nothing like sticking up for the referees union.
He undermines his credibility (if any!) totally by supporting the second decision.
Wheras the first was a marginal judgement call (and may have been right) the second was merely a question of fact. The ball is either moving or it isn't. This one was was moving (immaterial that it was only moving a little bit) and therefore should have been retaken. The fact that it was moving meant that Liverpool were able to take advantage of a (too) quickly taken free-kick.
Dermot was never on my list of good guys and if he thinks that was OK then he needs his integrity checking. the ball was moving, stevie wonder saw it too it was that obvious. the offside was too close to call. is dermot mark halsey in disguise, his comments are a disgrace.
Bog off! I must have a microscope on each eye then.
092.gif
Not sure Dermott the Dunce knew the rules when he was a ref so i have no expectatiin he does now. In any event whether the ball was moving or not & with 1 side half celebrating a goal, allowing a quick free kick to be taken is plain dumb.
Also he supports Liverpool
Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.
On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.
Gallaghers first name is actually Rick, spelt with a silent P.
Quote from: Bill2 on November 12, 2018, 04:09:39 PM
Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.
On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.
last time i read the rule it said that if any part of your body with which you can legally play the ball is in advance of the last defender (assuming the goalkeeper is the last player) then you are in an offside position. the slow motion and still picture is far too close to call so dermot is an idiot however you look at it and really that is all he needed say, that is was close, because actually, he can't know for 100% certain and when is a rolling ball a still ball? when dermot says so.
It may have been appropriate for Mr Gallagher to explain that the assistant's view of the offisde was conflicted by Schurrle crossing his sight line at the critical moment. The referee couldn't see the moving ball because his view was obstructed by a Liverpool player in his sight line (I have seen a view where he appears to try to look over the player's shoulder). That means both decisions were about things the officials didn't see rather than did see. Gallagher will be familiar with that.
Quote from: Bill2 on November 12, 2018, 04:09:39 PM
Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.
On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.
This is the thing. Are shoulder goals allowed? I can't think of an instance where they were. If they aren't then it's not offside.
Wouldn't pay a shred of attention to anything Dermot Gallagher says after how he stitched us up away to Middlesbrough in 2002. Would recommend pressing mute any time he appears on your screen.
Quote from: toshes mate on November 12, 2018, 05:07:00 PM
It may have been appropriate for Mr Gallagher to explain that the assistant's view of the offisde was conflicted by Schurrle crossing his sight line at the critical moment. The referee couldn't see the moving ball because his view was obstructed by a Liverpool player in his sight line (I have seen a view where he appears to try to look over the player's shoulder). That means both decisions were about things the officials didn't see rather than did see. Gallagher will be familiar with that.
I find this quite annoying, giving a decision that he did not see, if he didn't see it then he can't give it, well that should be the case.
Quote from: nose on November 12, 2018, 04:30:02 PM
Quote from: Bill2 on November 12, 2018, 04:09:39 PM
Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.
On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.
last time i read the rule it said that if any part of your body with which you can legally play the ball is in advance of the last defender (assuming the goalkeeper is the last player) then you are in an offside position. the slow motion and still picture is far too close to call so dermot is an idiot however you look at it and really that is all he needed say, that is was close, because actually, he can't know for 100% certain and when is a rolling ball a still ball? when dermot says so.
to be deemed offside the player has o be deemed nearer to the opponent goal line than the bal and less than two players WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED.
I accept the new decsion it has to be a scoreable part of the body.
Mitro looked level and in any event NOT nearer to the goal line than the opponents ,
Poor analysis from Mr Gallagher. What he's done is create a false premise -that the ball was barely moving. It was moving a lot. Then he's suggested that barely moving is kind of OK. It isn't it's against the rules. Rules : the things referees are only there to uphold.
You know I would love to see the whole incident again and to check that the ball for the free kick was actually on the spot where Mtrovic was offside.
Quote from: filham on November 12, 2018, 09:44:31 PM
You know I would love to see the whole incident again and to check that the ball for the free kick was actually on the spot where Mtrovic was offside.
Nowhere near.
O/S given well outside the 6yd box - kick taken well inside it.
Compare with fuss made over placement of a Rico goalkick earlier on.
As I've said before, if the top players are getting £300k+ per week then IMO so should the refs, because they influence the game at least as much and there should only be a handful, 10-15 of them doing the job at the highest level.
But the quid pro quo needs to be massively raising standards. 1,000s of young boys trying and failing to make it into refs academies every year, the best of them get identified at 10 or 12 years old and sponsored, spending their whole lives doing nothing but practising reffing, etc etc.
Then you would actually get people who are good at the job instead of these useless pillocks we have at the moment.
I have only watched highlights of this game, being in Auckland NZ and no having TV access. If we accept the decision that Mitro's shoulder put him offside, then could someone tell me which part of Salah was not offside when the ball was played to him? I thought he was clearly 2-3 yards at least offside when the ball was played to him.
Kiwimike , sorry mate to dissapoint you but despite the ball moving and the free kick taken in the wrong spot Salah was nowhere near offside.
Quote from: Statto on November 12, 2018, 10:15:50 PM
As I've said before, if the top players are getting £300k+ per week then IMO so should the refs, because they influence the game at least as much and there should only be a handful, 10-15 of them doing the job at the highest level.
But the quid pro quo needs to be massively raising standards. 1,000s of young boys trying and failing to make it into refs academies every year, the best of them get identified at 10 or 12 years old and sponsored, spending their whole lives doing nothing but practising reffing, etc etc.
Then you would actually get people who are good at the job instead of these useless pillocks we have at the moment.
There is a list of certain refs who are professional and only do officiate/train each day etc - the ones in the lower leagues are part time I believe?
Still doesn't always work.
Most look very unfit and seem to guess most of the time I think.
Quote from: Watford_fc on November 13, 2018, 06:33:12 AM
Quote from: Statto on November 12, 2018, 10:15:50 PM
As I've said before, if the top players are getting £300k+ per week then IMO so should the refs, because they influence the game at least as much and there should only be a handful, 10-15 of them doing the job at the highest level.
But the quid pro quo needs to be massively raising standards. 1,000s of young boys trying and failing to make it into refs academies every year, the best of them get identified at 10 or 12 years old and sponsored, spending their whole lives doing nothing but practising reffing, etc etc.
Then you would actually get people who are good at the job instead of these useless pillocks we have at the moment.
There is a list of certain refs who are professional and only do officiate/train each day etc - the ones in the lower leagues are part time I believe?
Still doesn't always work.
Most look very unfit and seem to guess most of the time I think.
I'm aware that some are professional, rather than part-time, but I'm talking about more than that.
For example when you go to watch Vincent kompany, you are seeing not only a full-time professional but an elite hyper-talented player, someone who can say there are probably only between 0 and 10 people on the entire planet who can to his job as well as he does it
PL refs should be able to make the same claim IMO but as you say they look unfit and generally don't merit the responsibility in my experience
It's interesting to listen to pundits pontificate about 'you can be offside if' when, in real time, a human being would be hard put to judge any close run thing about torso or feet - think about athletics and photo finishes. A few years back when the offside law was amended the general principle was stated that offside decisions should be clear i.e. a player is clearly offside eliminating marginal decisions where, for all intents and purposes, there is no way consistency can be obtained except through replay. Once again the football authorities fail to administer consistency which, at the end of the day, is what we all crave for.
The moving ball is similar in as much is referees pedantically require free kicks to be properly taken when time wasting is going on, then they should be properly taken every time. Again it is about consitency and not that'll do because it's Liverpool, United, City, or whoever else is flavour of the era.
Quote from: deadcowboys on November 12, 2018, 03:33:59 PM
Not sure Dermott the Dunce knew the rules when he was a ref so i have no expectatiin he does now. In any event whether the ball was moving or not & with 1 side half celebrating a goal, allowing a quick free kick to be taken is plain dumb.
this is my opinion exactly
I think the offside was the correct decision and I think Liverpool were smart to get on and break as quick as they did...
But - the ref should not allow them to take a quick free kick in that situation - the oppo (we) are still celebrating/debating a disallowed goal, Liverpool gained an unfair advantage at that moment and we could not recover our shape in time to prevent Salah from scoring. That is the thing that has me most aggrieved.
Having said all that, at least we were at the races! Things are looking up, I am right behind Slav to turn this season round!
Decisions should only be given if the Official can be certain, The Lino could not be certain as his view was partially blocked and so he bottled it. That said the Ref could not have seen the rolling ball either so he could not be at fault!
It's consistency that's needed.
Quote from: SuffolkWhite on November 13, 2018, 02:27:27 PM
Decisions should only be given if the Official can be certain, The Lino could not be certain as his view was partially blocked and so he bottled it. That said the Ref could not have seen the rolling ball either so he could not be at fault!
It's consistency that's needed.
Hate to be controversial but BT showed the rolling ball incident from behind the goal and used graphical overlay to assist and the ref had a perfect view and was actually looking at the goalkeeper, it may be available as clip somewhere. He just had to have seen it it and got it wrong for whatever reason.
And whilst I do think liverpool are blameless as a team, I encourage the idea of taking quick free kicks as a rule and hope we would have done the same....I do think under the circumstances, the ref should have not allowed the quick free kick in this one instance because it wasn't a foul or anything disreputable we did, it was a disallowed goal and somehow fair play and moral justice would say he should have let our team have a chance to re organise. if we had been arguing that would have been different but we were still celebrating.
