[clarevoyant.]

moondog, on 10 January 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

Maybe, only watched it the once, since listened to the post match interview with Danny (Radio Sheffield) where the ref told him it came off Novak, making it a ridiculous decision

So boyeson had a hour and a half plus to come up with a excuse and got that totally wrong

[moondog]

clarevoyant., on 10 January 2016 - 05:18 PM, said:

So boyeson had a hour and a half plus to come up with a excuse and got that totally wrong

I got the impression he told Wilson at half time, with Wilson confirming he originally gave the goal and the lino didn't flag

[lindo-spireite]

Westbars Spireite, on 10 January 2016 - 05:11 PM, said:

You aren't very good at making your point clear these days.

He's an old boy these days

[whittman]

Looking at the highlights if the lino thought the shot came off Novak what is Stevie Wonder doing these days?

Novak was to the right of the keeper as boly shot to his left so was not in his line of sight


You only have to look at reaction of the defender who deflected the shot in

He makes a token gesture of raising his arm to protest as he walks getting ready to kick off again

If he thought Novak was offside he would have run straight towards the lino shouting and pointing all the time

But we won anyway despite the best efforts of the referee and stevie wonder :

[DIFH]

lindo-spireite, on 10 January 2016 - 05:48 PM, said:

He's an old boy these days

I've been an old boy for a very long time now, the good news is I'm here to contibute

[lindave]

moondog, on 10 January 2016 - 03:33 PM, said:

If Novak was offside for the second disallowed goal, then Rochdale's second should have been chalked off for the same reason as a Rochdale player was stood in front of Tommy as the header went in

I thought their first was off.

[60s 70s Spireite]

 Offside Novak.JPG (59.01K)
Number of downloads: 85
Was Novak even offside for the first disallowed goal?

[Stoptalkingbol]

60s 70s Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

Offside Novak.JPG
Was Novak even offside for the first disallowed goal?

Looks a yard off, but impossible to be certain looking at that.

[Mr Mercury]

60s 70s Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

Offside Novak.JPG
Was Novak even offside for the first disallowed goal?

We were sat pretty level with it and he did seem to be half a yard off, even after seeing the pic I've no probs with that decision.

[dim view]

whittman, on 10 January 2016 - 06:11 PM, said:

If he thought Novak was offside he would have run straight towards the lino shouting and pointing all the time

But we won anyway despite the best efforts of the referee and stevie wonder :

So, in theory, what should the correct course of events have been?.

Novak was in an offside position when the ball was kicked. Presumably the sequence should have been that the lino should have flagged because he can't tell that Novak is not 'active'; the ref and lino should then have discussed the situation; then the goal should have been allowed because the ref could see that Novak was not 'active'?.

The whole thing is a bludddy shambles.

This post has been edited by dim view: 11 January 2016 - 10:56 AM

[Goku]

But Novak was "active", surely?

[60s 70s Spireite]

Goku, on 11 January 2016 - 12:11 PM, said:

But Novak was "active", surely?

The 2015-16 rule is:

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

Which still leaves about 15 pages for debate me thinks. From games on TV the differentiator for the seems to be if the player in Novak's position makes a move to play the ball and misses (he didn't), or he blinds the keeper (debatable, but I would say he didn't).

[Sammy Spireite]

All this debate is made irrelevant by this bit " in the opinion of the referee" as he obviously felt he was involved in active play.

[hilly81]

60s 70s Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 12:25 PM, said:

The 2015-16 rule is:

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position

Which still leaves about 15 pages for debate me thinks. From games on TV the differentiator for the seems to be if the player in Novak's position makes a move to play the ball and misses (he didn't), or he blinds the keeper (debatable, but I would say he didn't).

He isn't in the keepers view and I don't think he touches the ball. The goal should have stood in my opinion. It's similar to the Funes Mori goal for Everton v City last week. Lukaku was closer to obscuring the keepers view than Novak and the goal stood.

[60s 70s Spireite]

Sammy Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

All this debate is made irrelevant by this bit " in the opinion of the referee" as he obviously felt he was involved in active play.

All debate on here about referee's decisions is irrelevant to the result and outcomes, but I don't think it will stop such threads. For one start there would be no posts from Clarevoyant!

[JonB]

Sammy Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

All this debate is made irrelevant by this bit " in the opinion of the referee" as he obviously felt he was involved in active play.

Hasnt Wilson said the ref told him the ball hit Novak which is incorrect anyway so from there he's onto a loser about his opinion!

[clarevoyant.]

60s 70s Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 12:32 PM, said:

All debate on here about referee's decisions is irrelevant to the result and outcomes, but I don't think it will stop such threads. For one start there would be no posts from Clarevoyant!

I like to post on subjects that I have first hand knowledge of therefore having been to the games and thus witnessing bizarre decisiona I like to have my tupenneth especially as these decisions have a tendency to go against my team to regularly. I avoid subjects when speculation is the main source of debate ie CEO bashing.

In the interest of diversity and allowing for the past 6 months:- What would you consider to be CFCs bizarrest management decision (team). I'll go for playing John Osborne at centre forward or not subbing Jim Brown at Gillinghsm

[dim view]

JonB, on 11 January 2016 - 02:01 PM, said:

Hasnt Wilson said the ref told him the ball hit Novak which is incorrect anyway so from there he's onto a loser about his opinion!

What I don't get is that all 4 officials are wired up. How can there be such a long delay?. A quick 'I'm allowing that. Anybody disagree?' in their shell likes' is all it should take.

The shambolic standard of refereeing is demeaning our multi billion pound ultra professional sport.

[60s 70s Spireite]

clarevoyant., on 11 January 2016 - 05:21 PM, said:

I like to post on subjects that I have first hand knowledge of therefore having been to the games and thus witnessing bizarre decisiona I like to have my tupenneth especially as these decisions have a tendency to go against my team to regularly. I avoid subjects when speculation is the main source of debate ie CEO bashing.

In the interest of diversity and allowing for the past 6 months:- What would you consider to be CFCs bizarrest management decision (team). I'll go for playing John Osborne at centre forward or not subbing Jim Brown at Gillinghsm

Tony McShane throwing the shirts up at Lincoln, and the players playing in the position of the shirt they picked up.

[clarevoyant.]

60s 70s Spireite, on 11 January 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

Tony McShane throwing the shirts up at Lincoln, and the players playing in the position of the shirt they picked up.

Good old Tony
That one slipped the memory bank, our you sure it was at Lincoln?