Jump to content
IGNORED

Watford’s first goal v Stoke.


Tipps69

Recommended Posts

What do you make of this? Cleverly’s shot is clearly saved on to the bar & then doesn’t bounce over the line, Pedro comes in & ‘nudges’ Angus Gunn (Stoke keeper) over the line & the ref gives the goal because goal line technology shows that the ball has crossed the line!

Ref & 4th official discuss the situation & they are clearly getting information from elsewhere but the ref continues to give the goal!

Fast forward to about 3:55 for this particular action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you have the assistant referee in the shot, and he doesn't give a foul, so if it's not a foul, and the ball crosses the line, it must be a goal.

I mean I THINK it's a foul, but if we want human error in the game (which I do) and no VAR, then we have to accept bad decisions from bad humans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fordy62 said:

I can only assume they made the decision that the refs watch buzzed for the initial shot and it’s a terrible mistake. Because otherwise it’s incredible. 

Initially I don’t believe it did buzz but then did when Gunn was nudged over the line a second or so later. You can notice a slight delay by the Stoke players when they realised the ref had given the goal.

Obviously goal line technology is only evolved enough to indicate when the ball has crossed the line, it doesn’t know how the ball has crossed the line so as the ball has clearly crossed the line, the technology indicated so, it was then down to the ref or assistant ref to decide if there was a foul in the play & they obviously decided there wasn’t! Which considering the amount of times players hit the floor when a blade of grass has snipered them, is unusual. 
As a result, I’m not sure how the goal has gone down as Tom Cleverly’s because his effort clearly didn’t go over the line so it should technically be an own goal by Angus Gunn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prinny said:

Well, you have the assistant referee in the shot, and he doesn't give a foul, so if it's not a foul, and the ball crosses the line, it must be a goal.

I mean I THINK it's a foul, but if we want human error in the game (which I do) and no VAR, then we have to accept bad decisions from bad humans.

Sadly after Villa last year and some of the Pens and non Pens recently, VAR and goal line tech have plenty of inbuilt human errors too.

Just had a look again, Ref doesn't check his watch for an alert after the initial shot (I think they get buzzed by it), and only looks after the challenge. I can only think he deems the body charge fair, which is ridiculous 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, 1960maaan said:

Sadly after Villa last year and some of the Pens and non Pens recently, VAR and goal line tech have plenty of inbuilt human errors too.

Just had a look again, Ref doesn't check his watch for an alert after the initial shot (I think they get buzzed by it), and only looks after the challenge. I can only think he deems the body charge fair, which is ridiculous 

My guess would be that he felt no vibration after the initial shot / save but did after the nudge. Decided there wasn’t enough in the nudge, goal given. Which is fine but it’s all about that consistency thing again!
 

The penalty & subsequent sending off of Steve Cook in the Sheffield Wednesday v Bournemouth game this midweek is the complete polar opposite of the Watford v Stoke incident & the way Josh Windass goes down, rolling around like he’s been two footed from the waist is ridiculous, I’ve cuddles my nan harder when saying goodbye to her & she’s never claimed a freekick against me yet!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As some have already alluded to, I think the ref did not think the first attempt had gone over the line, but would not have had the best of angles, so when his watch buzzed he assumed that the ball had gone over the line at that point.  That being the case, whatever happens after that (ie what was a clear foul on the GK) had no consequence, as the ball is no longer in play and next action is for Stoke to kick off following the goal.  It was really unfortunate as the goal should not have stood, but I can see how (without VAR) the ref gave the goal.

I know that VAR is not the most popular thing in the Prem, but it would have provided the right decision last night.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terrible decision...........I bet on Watford last night at 5/4, not only should that 1st goal have been disallowed, but then their winner came in the 93rd minute.  I was very lucky, and so were Watford. Think i have used up all my betting karma for this week already!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven’t seen it but from what you describe there should’ve been two goal-line events:

1. For the initial handling by Gunn

2. When he was fouled

In the last World Cup they have an incident where both events happened and both were reported separately to the ref / big screen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, New Dazzler said:

As some have already alluded to, I think the ref did not think the first attempt had gone over the line, but would not have had the best of angles, so when his watch buzzed he assumed that the ball had gone over the line at that point.  That being the case, whatever happens after that (ie what was a clear foul on the GK) had no consequence, as the ball is no longer in play and next action is for Stoke to kick off following the goal.  It was really unfortunate as the goal should not have stood, but I can see how (without VAR) the ref gave the goal.

I know that VAR is not the most popular thing in the Prem, but it would have provided the right decision last night.

You mean like it did when Sheff Utd “scored” at Villa last season?

 

Edit: Just seen that @Kingswood Robin referenced the Sheff U goal in his post - I hadn’t read down that far when replying.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...