02 Mar 2022 11:19:08
So I've just watched the Carling Cup final back and saw the buildup to Matip's goal. So, I'm confused here. The goal was chalked off for offside by VVD. However VVD never went for the ball (Mane did from a deeper position hence, not offside) hence, VVD did not interfere with play nor got a competitive advantage so how could he have been offside? Can someone explain how on earth the goal was disallowed for an offside on VVD who literally NEVER went for the ball?

02 Mar 2022 11:34:38
He momentarily blocked the run of a Chelsea defender.

02 Mar 2022 11:41:27
As I understand it, it's not just that Virgil was offside, it's that he was offside and tangled with a Chelsea defender (I think Chalobah) .

The logic is that either he fouled Chalobah, or prevented him from getting back to either stop the ball to Mane or stop Mane's pass to Matip.

I honestly haven't gone re-watching it since we won anyway.

02 Mar 2022 11:42:14
100% HAJI.

02 Mar 2022 11:45:50
They got it wrong plain and simple and made up with Lukaku’s goal.

02 Mar 2022 11:51:41
Virgil was in an offside position when the ball was played in and blocked off James from getting to Mane.

02 Mar 2022 12:28:28
Thanks, guys. I can understand if they called offside cos he was tangled with a Chelsea player while being in an offside position hence indeed, VVD was interfering with play hence, offside like SR said. Not sure VVD needed to do that cos Reece was never getting to Mane anyway and Rudiger went asleep at the back post (shocking, I know) . Either way, we won but just needed to understand the logic.

02 Mar 2022 12:30:04
Though if you look carefully he didn’t block the defender. The defender was in a poor position and walked in to him.

02 Mar 2022 13:26:28
1jj, I get that and there is an argument to be made as to whether there was enuff contact BUT if the refs are calling it that tight then, they need to do it for both teams which I think they did for the Lukaku offside goal. Funny enuff, the Chelsea fans are not howling about the goal that was ruled out by Matip BUT are up in arms about the Lukaku goal that based on the rules, was offside. Yet they call us victims, lol.

02 Mar 2022 13:54:52
You guys might not like this because I am American and so my qualifications here aren't what they would be if I had been trained in the UK, but until I was 35 I refereed games at a reasonably high level here, the USL, so one level below MLS-- though a pretty significant gulf in quality. I'm surely better than Kavanagh, though.

I think this offside call is correct and is consistent with the law. I think maybe it's not cool for the game that offside is called this way-- I'd prefer some leeway on body parts, like maybe your foot has to be all the way offside or something. I don't think this would lead to teams playing much deeper lines, which is the concern if you were to take away offside, that it would look like a basketball game played on two separate halves rather than one flowing field, with a bunch of long balls and less clever passing in the middle of the pitch.

I think we have a lot of legitimate grievances, but sometimes close calls that just kind of stink are correct. It's a tough one to swallow because of the circumstances, but VVD's presence does interfere with a defender who could conceivably get back and contest the first header, and VVD's position was illegal. Thus, he is correctly penalized.

02 Mar 2022 19:30:51
My take on it. they was checking for off side. clearly it wasn't as he didn't interfere with anything. As for blocking, come on worse things happen on every single corner in every single game. It should of stood for me.
Lukaku offside. we've had a few of them this season and last season.
Neither of those were as bad as the city farce.

02 Mar 2022 19:46:20
American Plastic, you may be absolutely right, but I think the main gripe most of us have is with the inconsistency of the VAR calls. You simply never know which way a call is going to be made, because the same infraction will be called differently between two sets of ref and VAR officials. I've been watching football for easily 50 years, and I am certainly no know it all in any shape or form. But things used to be so much simpler. I would watch a slow motion and I would imnmediately know what the problem was. It's no longer the case.

I seriously think that referee reviews should completely be made at normal speed. And that's it. Because that's the way the game is played and refs should judge things at the same speed. Have another look by all means, but look at it as if it was during the game.
Today they are looking at (for example) 0.8 speed or 0.5 speed, what will stop them from playing around witg replay speeds in the future? It's exactly like choosing the absolute right, split second, moment when the football leaves a player's foot when you are drawing that straight red line on offsides. It's all arbitrary, and really doesn't solve any problems. It actually creates a new set.