Watford FC 2-1 Leicester - 03/03/2019

Discussion in 'Match Day' started by domthehornet, Mar 1, 2019.

  1. BigRossLittleRoss

    BigRossLittleRoss First Team

    This is header won by Maguire over Deeney which created the turnover which led to Leicesters goal.

    According to Jon Moss Maguire isnt climbing on Deeney to get the ball.

    [​IMG]
     
  2. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team Captain

    You could have taken that shot at 20 different times during the match. Not once was it called a foul.

    Climbing over Watford players, wrapping your arms around Watford players, pushing Watford players to the ground is all ok according to Mr Moss. Getting near a Leicester player is not allowed and is a foul.
     
    Happy bunny, Ray Knight and PowerJugs like this.
  3. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth First Team Captain

    Yes it was that quote posted earlier, plus the "AG gives shirt to disabled fan " post which led to my post.
     
  4. Since63

    Since63 Squad Player

    Well trawled....except, for context, you have not included what the discussion was about re: raising flags or not...
     
  5. Bubble

    Bubble Wise Oracle

    It was the same down at Bournemouth when that fella Coote (c**t) was reffing. Deeney and Deulofeu were being man handled all game and didn't get a single foul!
     
    Ray Knight likes this.
  6. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst Its making less grammar mistake's thats important

    There is no doubt that, when it comes to the physical grappling, pushing and shirt-pulling, all referees give much more leeway to defenders rather than forwards. I don’t know why this should be. I suspect they are frightened of giving too many penalties (why?) but that doesn’t explain why that policy extends to other areas on the pitch.
     
  7. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth First Team Captain

    The man-handling that goes on at corners is shocking and so rarely penalised. Defenders don't even watch the ball, they just hold their man, frequently in direct sight of the ref, but a foul is almost never given. There was a shocking incident in the Sheffield derby where a player was effectively pulled to the floor but no pen was given. It's getting ridiculous.
     
    Stevohorn likes this.
  8. PowerJugs

    PowerJugs Doyley Fanatic

    Thoughts from our the game:

    I still think Gray is more suited to playing a two striker formation than Deulofeu as he's always played there rather than converting/converted from a wing position. He stays more central and times his runs better to get into the box and sniff out chances, like his goals against Everton and Leicester which Deulofeu does still lack at times.

    That said, this last month or two has seen Deulofeu really get to grips with the work rate needed to play as a striker; he always had the ability to win games but he would very often not do what Gray does; challenge headers and 2nd balls and harry the opposition. What's impressed me is that he's doing a lot more off the ball to harass the opposition now and do more than just wait to run behind. He doesn't win many headers but at least he tries to more now. His passing is better than Gray's too when deeper in midfield which I think was something HB1 (Now checked who it was!) alluded to when Gray gave away the ball with his passing.

    It's nice having 2 quick, smart players to cause problems with Deeney doing what he does best which is link up strikers and feed off the interplay it creates. And we still have Penaranda and Success to put there too if we need them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2019
    Happy bunny likes this.
  9. FromDiv4

    FromDiv4 Reservist

    Agree with all of this.

    Deulofeu has certainly been working harder and contributing well recently. One area he could still improve on is offsides. There were several times when he was offside for no reason in the game.
     
    Ray Knight likes this.
  10. Siohmy

    Siohmy Reservist

    Oh my days no. I realise the current system is flawed, what with all the phases and such but the reason it was brought in was because the old way favoured the defence too heavily and slowed the game up.

    Imagine currently, where you press the opposition defence. They clear and you have a quick break on with another player. Nope. Got to wait until your pressing player or players ensure they are back onside. End of game, goalkeeper has ball at feet and defence is near the half way line. Wait until an opposition player closes you down. Launch it knowing the other team will have to wait to play an attacking pass. That’s just one I can think of off the top of my head.

    The other thing with VAR is that, as it’s clearly going to be used to micro-manage (or ref I suppose) offside decisions we should change the rule back to all scoring parts of body need to be offside. It’d favour the attacking team which is a good thing and would avoid the inevitable farce of someones nose being called offside. The offside calls may still be marginal but far more palatable.
     
  11. PowerJugs

    PowerJugs Doyley Fanatic

    So Deeney's would still be offside by that reckoning?

    [​IMG]

    As per the image, Deeney was offside by more than, say his arm being outstretched. His chest and head were ahead of it which he can legally score with. I'd agree with with what you're saying if it's his arm ahead of the last man and nothing else.
     
    Flying fish likes this.
  12. Siohmy

    Siohmy Reservist

    Not quite. What I meant was that you are only offside if all of you is beyond the last man. They tried to implement it a few seasons back as “clear space” between defender and attacker but it never worked, or was even really used. With VAR it would give more confidence to the officials to let some things go as a majority will probably be onside. Plus it’d open the game up a bit more. I’d feel sorry for the defenders as it’ll make their job harder but would likely improve the spectacle and reduce the VAR offside calls, at least until the attackers get used to pushing their edge (so 21 mins into the first game then).

    Of all the things VAR will be used for I actually find offside is likely to be the one which works poorest. Yes it is supposedly black and white but some of the decisions, whilst correct, will look ridiculous. I’m far happier for it to be used to call out cheating and penalties. Will mistakes and dubious decisions still be made? Yes, but if anything it may highlight some **** referees/fourth officials/VAR refs. You’ve got the tools to get the best views, not VARs fault you still give Bournemouth their penalties against Wolves.
     
  13. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team Captain

    You've answered your own argument there. The current system is flawed so therefore needs changing.

    There was nothing wrong with the old way and everyone knew where they stood with it. The old version was is use for 70 years, so a lifetime of football had been played without feeling it was inadequate.

    In the Carabao Cup final, we saw Hazard break clear, was onside once VAR had checked it, but the linesman flagged for offside, even though he was supposed to delay flagging such tight calls. This robbed Chelsea of scoring a decisive goal and winning the cup. It was a major decision and they still got it wrong because of human error not technology.

    Ok, it was Chelsea and they will get many more chances to win a major trophy, but just think how cheated we'd have felt had it been Watford, who would probably only have one chance in a lifetime to win a domestic cup.

    I think VAR is a good system, it's just the officials will still **** it all up because in general they are quite an incompetent bunch.

    Just imagine Jon Moss sitting in the control centre, trying to work out which button to press. "Now what do I do to rewind it? Where's the bloody VHS tape go?......oh to hell with it....just go with what Michael Oliver said".

    The more you complicate something, the more there will be grey areas. Make it simple and just stick to the rules.
     
    PowerJugs likes this.
  14. BusheyOrn

    BusheyOrn Reservist

    I have not seen any view that is directly in line and categorically shows him offside.
    This is now Tuesday so as far as I'm concerned this type of goal should and will stand.
     
    Siohmy likes this.
  15. Markoa$

    Markoa$ Squad Player

    Deeney was not offside. There was a camera angle shown here in the states that went straight across and they even put the little white line across to show he was level. Not sure why that camera angle keeps being used because it creates a false reality. He was onside 100%

    Another reason why he was not offside is because the goal wasn’t mentioned at all on Ref Watch. We all know there is a witch hunt against us in the media. So the fact it didn’t come up, is enough evidence to prove he was onside as well.
     
    Siohmy, hornetboy1 and BusheyOrn like this.
  16. wfc4ever

    wfc4ever Administrator Staff Member

    Well it was only his arm that might have been offside anyway so hardly an obvious error .

    Trouble is all the pundits have endless screens to look at and decide instantly if something was wrong ..occasionally they still aren't certain either way .

    Officials don't- ATM.

    BTW I didn't think managers were allowed screens in the dugout to watch replays ?

    Brendan Rodgers did just that when the goal went in ..
     
  17. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese Reservist

    Arms cannot be offside.
     
  18. Siohmy

    Siohmy Reservist

    By that measure are you suggesting we go back to allowing back passes to the goalkeeper. It was fine for 70 years so why not now. Ok, I’m being a bit flippant here as that rule change is pretty easy to implement and ref although occasionally there are still questions about what constitutes a back pass.

    I said the current system is flawed not worse. It may introduce some grey areas but the fact more decisions are still about if an individual is offside as opposed to the odd occasion about phases of play shows it’s still preferable to offside is offside is offside. I do understand the ethos about what are you doing on the pitch if you are not interfering to some degree but as a spectacle football should be first and foremost entertaining and having the ref blow up every 5 minutes because a player on the opposite side of the pitch is a couple of feet offside cannot be good.
     
  19. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team Captain

    I think it was actually a mirror.
     
  20. The undeniable truth

    The undeniable truth First Team Captain

    We won't need them.
    I believe there's a VAR meeting being held tomorrow to see if they should call play back and restart with a free kick to LCFC.
     
    Ray Knight and BusheyOrn like this.
  21. hornetboy1

    hornetboy1 First Team Captain

    Just because going back to the original offside rule, doesn't mean all rules need changing back. What sort of logic is that? Is there any problem with the new back pass rule? No, so therefore doesn't need any amendments. Some rule changes work well, and innovation is a good thing. But when rule change is made, but it's clear not as good, you should go back to the original version.

    There are far too many mistakes made, a lack of knowledge of what is offside and that goes right across to board from spectators to officials. It just needs simplifying so everyone knows where they stand.

    How about this for an adaptation to the rules. The part of the body that a player touches the ball with first, is the only part they judge as offside/onside. So if Deeney's head is offside and he heads it, the goal is disallowed, however, if Deeney's head is offside and he side foots it in, then the goal should stand. Not trying to make out Deeney has an exceptionally big head, but hopefully you know what I mean by this.

    So if a ball is played through to a player who is leaning forward so his head is offside but feet are onside, and he runs onto it and controls it with his foot, then he's considered onside. I think that would make far more sense.

    I've always felt that if you are leaning forward, it doesn't really give you an advantage. It's where your feet are in relation to the guy next to you which should dictate whether you are ahead or not. Now if it's a race like in the Olympics then of course it's whatever part of the body crosses the line first, but we're talking about a particular instance of what should make a player offside or not.
     
  22. Beekayess

    Beekayess Reservist

    Serious question - why was the offside law introduced ? Whatever the answer (and I don't know it), is it still applicable in today's game, or should we remove the offside rule altogether ?

    For a long time I've believed that being a linesman trying to determine whether or not a player is offside must be an incredibly hard task - simultaneously you have to be looking at the ball when it is kicked and at the player receiving it. It would be ideal for Marty Feldman (one for our older readers) but extremely difficult for those who aren't ocularly challenged.
     
    RookeryDad likes this.
  23. Siohmy

    Siohmy Reservist

    The logic was that both rules have improved the game to some degree and that going back would be bad. The old backpass and offside rules really slowed the game down. I think both changes have improved the game and, yes, the offside one is and always has been the more difficult one to implement. Having grown up with both rules in play I can hosently say I wouldn’t want the return of either and would rather put up with some element of controversy as the benefits far outweigh the negatives. Offside always has been and always will be contentious to some degree. The balance between improving the game as a spectacle whilst keeping the fundamentals of the rule is a difficult one.

    As for the suggestion of only offside if that part of the body makes initial contact with the ball. That’s a really good idea. I can certainly see multiple occasions next year that a fast player will have his upper body 2-3” offside but feet firmly onside and control it in that manner as you say in addition to one or two other examples. Probably goes down that route of further over complicating though.
     
  24. Or Paul Ince.
     
  25. vic-rijrode

    vic-rijrode First Year Pro

    or this guy (70s linesman - never got an offside wrong):

    upload_2019-3-5_18-22-51.jpeg
     
  26. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese Reservist

    To stop 'goal-hanging'.
    With no offside rule coaches would work out in a nanosecond that you could stand a man permanently in front of the oppo goalkeeper and smack the ball down to him every time you got it. It would certainly be end-to-end stuff, I suppose, perhaps somebody should try it. You could even have a man behind their keeper, or you stand as many people as you want in his line of sight. The game could be played like that, I imagine, but it would not even vaguely resemble the game currently being played.
     
  27. Forzainglese

    Forzainglese Reservist

    Siohmy is broadly right. As sports have entered modern times coaches in a number of them have found that it is easier to coach players to play defensively and stop the other side attacking. Attacking is creative and harder to do than defending. Both hockey and rugby union have extensively changed their rules to make it easier (and more worth while) to score than to stop the other side. Rugby, for instance, introduced 5 points for a try instead of 3 and you are allowed to juggle the ball without it being counted as a knock-on, and lots of other things.
    Football became incredibly boring with defences dominating (it still can be). Many of you will recall Middlesbrough under Jack Charlton specialising in home 1-0 wins and 0-0 away draws to get promotion. I stopped watching football at that point.
    Banning the back pass to the keeper was one effort to speed up the game and force players to play football instead of keepers spending half the game holding on to the ball.
    The offside trap was heavily exploited by coaches (QPR under Venables, anybody?) and the rules were changed to make it easier to beat that suffocating defensive ploy. I have to agree with the authorities doing that, but whether they got the new rules right is much more debatable.
     
    poakley likes this.
  28. vic-rijrode

    vic-rijrode First Year Pro

    Difficult to realise now that before 1925 there had to be at least 3 players between a forward player and the opposition goal (now, of course, it is 2 - usually, but not necessarily, including the goalkeeper). This lead to a 30% increase in the number of goals scored in the Football League in the first season it was introduced.

    The "offside trap" was introduced , of course, by Arsenal - not recently however, but a hundred years and more ago!
     
    Rontaylor and Supertommymooney like this.
  29. Aberystwyth_Hornet

    Aberystwyth_Hornet Squad Player

    Because it creates a more interesting story and gives the pundits something "controversial" to discuss which creates more debate and gives them a better sense of self worth
     
    Siohmy likes this.
  30. WillisWasTheWorst

    WillisWasTheWorst Its making less grammar mistake's thats important

    I’ll say it again: ‘clear and obvious error’ will not apply to offside decisions.
     
  31. RookeryDad

    RookeryDad Squad Player

    When was the last time Deeney used his head to score?

    This should be factored into the decision now we have the technology.
     
  32. Rontaylor

    Rontaylor Reservist


    When I'm refereeing I get looks of absolute amazement followed by borderline abuse when I call fouls for holding or pushing at corners. It is so rarely called by some refs that players don't seem to realise it is a foul.
     
  33. Rontaylor

    Rontaylor Reservist

    I'm sure you've noticed that linesmen stay level with the 2nd last defender whcch makes it easier. However each linesaman only covering one half of field can make calling throw ins tricky.
     
  34. Hogg-DEENEY!!!

    Hogg-DEENEY!!! Squad Player

    That's open to abuse though, as we see in cricket and tennis. It's one thing to have an appeal for tactical reasons (or just out of sheer desperation) in those sports, which are by nature more stop-start, but football is more flowing, I'd hate for managers to cynically stop other teams by just appealing for VAR frivolously. Plus, what happens if you have, say, 2 appeals but 3 decisions supposedly go against you?

    I'd keep VAR to just clear cut things like offsides/ball going out of play, or if a referee is unsighted for whatever reason, and even then, if you can't see anything obvious after a short look at the video, the decision (or lack of it rather) should stay the same
     
  35. Hogg-DEENEY!!!

    Hogg-DEENEY!!! Squad Player

    And absolutely no way should they look at slo-mo footage, it makes things look a lot worse than they actually are
     
    Jumbolina likes this.

Share This Page