Sheffield United at home match thread

[bexhill reds]

19 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Hardly a stonewall penalty.  Looked 50:50 on Sky.

Not a pen, side by side, if Wells had been closer to the ball then perhaps

[SouthS22]

13 minutes ago, And Its Smith said:

Yeah the ref wasn’t great but we didn’t not win because of the ref.  Their keeper has had Jack all to do 

But we did lose because a clear offside wasn’t given. And we also didn’t get to play against 10 men second half because the ref missed a clear red.  Probably fair to say the officials played a pretty important part in the result overall, not even going into the loss of control, the failure to stop persistent fouling or to do anything about time wasting. 
 

Not saying that piss poor defending yet again wasn’t a critical factor too. 

[cidercity1987]

1 minute ago, bexhill reds said:

Not a pen, side by side, if Wells had been closer to the ball then perhaps

What you on about closer to the ball? He had the ball very in control ready to get a shot off once he'd ran past the man

[kiwicolin]

Their goal was offside but the lines person does nothing.  

What actually do they do  ? 

[Alex_BCFC]

The shout on Wells was never a pen. 

[bexhill reds]

3 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

What you on about closer to the ball? He had the ball very in control ready to get a shot off once he'd ran past the man

No the sky replay showed they were  by side, if Wells had been in front of him and that challenge had come from behind rather then the side then you’d have a point.

[Packman]

38 minutes ago, Lew-T said:

Hate to say it but Sheff did a job on us. The officials were poor and inconsistent but this is the exact sort of game where we come up short and it’s happened again.

The experience and physicality lacking.

They really didn't 

[Andrew_V1]

45 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

Got to be honest the bottom half of the league is starting to look a bit of a concern now. We have played at least 1 more game than most and teams like West Brom, Boro  Coventry etc are starting to pick up wins now.

A relegation battle is a distinct possibility this season i fear.

My thoughts exactly.

This is an extremely tight division this year and we have put in two very good performances at home and come away with 1 point.

We cannot afford to throw away points now and we have to get some momentum again 

[AppyDAZE]

49 minutes ago, Midred said:

Good chance Nige will be donating todays pay to the referees charity!

Why, what's he said?

I was surprised there was not much complaining about the goal because he looked a mile off to me.

But apart from being a bit lenient with their antics, I didn't think the ref was that bad tbh.

Definitely didn't play the full 8 added minutes though. Seemed a couple short due to the Tanner business, where he should have stopped his watch quicker.

Edited November 1, 2022 by AppyDAZE

[firstdivision]

Thoroughly frustrating night. But can you see us winning a game like that? I can’t. And that’s why we are where we are - where I feared we would be going into the World Cup break. Just above the relegation zone. The alarm bell might not be ringing in the houses of many of Nige’s loyal army, but I can hear them in mine. Let’s hope I’m wrong and they’re right. 

[Jerseybean]

2 hours ago, Fordy62 said:

That’s as pleasing a half as you’ll ever see (without being 4-0 up). 

Wells, Scott, James all completely at the top of their game. Everyone else very good too. 

More of the same in the second half please. 
 

A-

Now I don’t wanna jinx it, but hasn’t the ref been brilliant?

Fordy62 you may not have wanna jinxed it but think you just did a game of two halves as far as the ref was concerned IMO.

[Midred]

5 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Why, what's he said?

I was surprised there was not much complaining about the goal because he looked a mile off to me.

But apart from being a bit lenient with their antics, I didn't think the ref was that bad tbh.

Definitely didn't play the full 8 added minutes though. Seemed a couple short due to the Tanner business, where he should have stopped his watch quicker.

No idea what he said, I was thinking ahead to the interview!

[AppyDAZE]

3 minutes ago, Midred said:

No idea what he said, I was thinking ahead to the interview!

Might have to change my opinion on the ref if what poeple are saying about this nasty foul on Williams. I'm in the Dolman, but it didn't look obvious from where I was. I just thought Williams wasn't going to win that ball, and I feared the worst.

Sickening and annoying if they have gotten away with a red when we have taken one.

Edited November 1, 2022 by AppyDAZE

[bexhill reds]

4 minutes ago, firstdivision said:

Thoroughly frustrating night. But can you see us winning a game like that? I can’t. And that’s why we are where we are - where I feared we would be going into the World Cup break. Just above the relegation zone. The alarm bell might not be ringing in the houses of many of Nige’s loyal army, but I can hear them in mine. Let’s hope I’m wrong and they’re right. 

If we hadn’t of created good chances then you might perhaps have a point, but if the team can play like that with some consistency then we’ll be fine. We’ve pretty much bossed that game and a bit more luck going our way would have seen us score 2 or 3 for sure. Our problem is that we can be capable of going toe to toe with the top of the table, then play complete dross at Birmingham and Reading

[AppyDAZE]

Didn't deserve to lose tonight, but our final ball is so poor and it's beginning to become a big problem.

Overall, not too down.

[bexhill reds]

1 minute ago, AppyDAZE said:

Might have to change my opinion on the ref if what poeple are saying about this nasty foul on Williams. I'm in the Dolman, but it didn't look obvious from where I was. I just thought Williams wasn't going to win that ball, and I feared the worst.

Sickening and annoying if they have gotten away with a red when we have taken one.

It was a shocker, yet tonight’s referee was looking right at it, he was perhaps closer to that than Tanner’s. You do wonder sometimes, he totally lost control in the 2nd half with odd decisions all over the place

[bexhill reds]

2 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Didn't deserve to lose tonight, but our final ball is so poor and it's beginning to become a big problem.

Overall, not too down.

I thought our crossing was better tonight, and more to the byline rather than diagonal balls pumped in, just unfortunate that we couldn’t quite convert them.

[AppyDAZE]

1 minute ago, bexhill reds said:

It was a shocker, yet tonight’s referee was looking right at it, he was perhaps closer to that than Tanner’s. You do wonder sometimes, he totally lost control in the 2nd half with odd decisions all over the place

A good point. I've changed my mind now. This reffing thing at AG is becoming a total joke.

And while we're at it,   LINESMAN ffs, stop jiggling about trying to stay warm and watch the ******* game. Either that or buy a ticket and pay like the rest of us.

[Redrascal2]

The team gave it their all tonight. And has been said if we continue to play like that we should start winning. But we need some luck to come our way quickly and one of the strikers to hit red hot form. Looking at the table and most clubs below have games in hand and pretty soon we will be hovering around the relegation zone  Just have to mention Alex Scott, what a player and what a performance.

[kit]

23 minutes ago, bexhill reds said:

No the sky replay showed they were  by side, if Wells had been in front of him and that challenge had come from behind rather then the side then you’d have a point.

The sky replay showed baldock clattering into wells and using him to stop his run in the direction of the touchline whilst wells had the ball under control. It was only once he had clattered him that they were then side by side. If wells isnt stood there he ends up about 2 yards past wells before he can pivot to the ball

It was a definite penalty, Wells was fouled.

[bexhill reds]

5 minutes ago, kit said:

The sky replay showed baldock clattering into wells and using him to stop his run in the direction of the touchline whilst wells had the ball under control. It was only once he had clattered him that they were then side by side. If wells isnt stood there he ends up about 2 yards past wells before he can pivot to the ball

It was a definite penalty, Wells was fouled.

The general players reaction is a good sign, and nobody apart from Wells really appealed if I recall. I’d be annoyed if that would be given against us.

[Red-Robbo]

25 minutes ago, firstdivision said:

Thoroughly frustrating night. But can you see us winning a game like that? I can’t. And that’s why we are where we are - where I feared we would be going into the World Cup break. Just above the relegation zone. The alarm bell might not be ringing in the houses of many of Nige’s loyal army, but I can hear them in mine. Let’s hope I’m wrong and they’re right. 

 

Well, I can see us winning it, because apart from a minute of inattention that led to their goal, we were pretty decent and play like that and we will win more than we lose.

HOWEVER, we aren't great at unparking parked buses and when teams decide to defend for 38 minutes and time waste, we've never been good at unpicking them. Perhaps because we don't really have any battering rams up front. 

[wendyredredrobin]

Great performance just lacking that final nouse. Blades forum admits they got outplayed, cited Scott as the best man on the pitch and lucky that there was no VAR! Left infuriated after all the goings on in the 2nd half and if I was George tanner would probably have done the same by then. I think the world cup break will be a welcome one and chance to recoup the first choice backline. On to the next

Edited November 1, 2022 by wendyredredrobin

[TommyD68]

Disappointing result, they never really looked like scoring. Shame about the goal, looks like it shouldn’t have stood for a push in the back and offside.

I thought Alex Scott was brilliant tonight, they didn’t want to go near him or put a tackle in at times. Vyner was excellent again in the first half, hes really come into his own this season and looks assured in near enough every game at the moment. 

We rely heavily on Semenyo and Weimann being on form, if those two get back firing we’ll be just fine. I think the break coming up in a couple of weeks can only be a positive, recharge and go again in the new year

[Offside]

Very, very frustrating tonight. We should have won that game. Sheff Utd were there for the taking. One of those games that just didn’t go our way. Unlucky. Onwards and upwards. 

[Jerseybean]

NP and AS post-match comments

https://fb.watch/gxpRs7qyH2/

https://fb.watch/gxq38gA03y/

 

 

[pillred]

1 hour ago, Super said:

Annoying. Deserved better.

Your right we did, but how many more times do we have to endure a game we easily dominated but got nothing. I reckon the ratio is about ten games we don't get our just desserts to occasionally holding our hands up and saying ah well we got lucky there it's baffling the law of averages is definitely not our friend.  

[W-S-M Seagull]

1 hour ago, AppyDAZE said:

Didn't deserve to lose tonight, but our final ball is so poor and it's beginning to become a big problem.

Overall, not too down.

That much of a problem yet we had 3 clear cut chances where we should have scored?

On another day we easily win tonight's game 4 nil. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

Just watched the highlights back on Bristol City YouTube.

No showing of the penalty appeal or the non red card, two fairly big omissions in nearly 10 mins??

[RedM]

6 hours ago, downendcity said:

If the that was a foul against Semenyo towards the end, then it was a stonewall penalty for the challenge on Wells.

Semenyo had is arm across the defender and pushed him off the ball, which is just what the Sheff U defender did to Wells.

The only difference is that to penalise the challenge on Wells would have meant a penalty..................

I really think Refs are scared to give us a penalty now, after all the decision will be scrutinised to death. They will always be the one who gave us a pen after x amount of time, so will want any decision to be so clear cut its almost ridiculous.

[brad blit]

Wing backs are not working, and our defensive issues as quite evident to see (that stat on Sky Sports last night was shocking) 

NP needs to move away from 352 and go for a variation of Liverpool 433 or 4312 so we can start controlling middle of the pitch with James, Scott and Williams. The full backs can still offer attacking width but having 3 in the middle means someone can shield back 4 and help bring out ball from defence, this formation will also give Naismith more passing options from the back

[firstdivision]

8 hours ago, bexhill reds said:

If we hadn’t of created good chances then you might perhaps have a point, but if the team can play like that with some consistency then we’ll be fine. We’ve pretty much bossed that game and a bit more luck going our way would have seen us score 2 or 3 for sure. Our problem is that we can be capable of going toe to toe with the top of the table, then play complete dross at Birmingham and Reading

Play well and lose. Play badly and lose. Be unlucky and lose. Make lots of defensive errors. That recipe often makes a relegation cake. Not that long ago that we stunk place out at Birmingham and Reading. 
We don’t look an obvious relegation team but who does in this league? 
 

[firstdivision]

9 hours ago, billywedlock said:

How did we lose that ? We certainly needed to take our chances . Sheffield looked a bottom 4 side not top 4 . Absolutely rubbish team compared to last season . We were our own worst enemies again. 

Billy, I think you’ve answered your own question in the last sentence. 

[firstdivision]

8 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Well, I can see us winning it, because apart from a minute of inattention that led to their goal, we were pretty decent and play like that and we will win more than we lose.

HOWEVER, we aren't great at unparking parked buses and when teams decide to defend for 38 minutes and time waste, we've never been good at unpicking them. Perhaps because we don't really have any battering rams up front. 

What I meant was that I couldn’t see us winning a game in the way Sheffield United won last night. Play poorly, nick a goal, dog it out. We’re too nervous and too soft defensively. I think you need to be able to do that in this league to be reasonably successful.
 (I didn’t make myself clear enough in my original post.)

[Jerseybean]

Paul Heckingbottom's reaction

That's the worst win I've had here. I felt our experience really came to the fore.

I can really feel for Nigel, so I'm not going to be smug about it but you've got to win.

They were the better team in most departments but we defended our box.

 

[AppyDAZE]

7 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Just watched the highlights back on Bristol City YouTube.

No showing of the penalty appeal or the non red card, two fairly big omissions in nearly 10 mins??

Like you, I'd like to see the one on Wells for a possible pen and the nasty one on Williams again.

Just watched the one on Sky, no complaints with their goal.

The moment Vyner (not his fault) heads it backwards after being put off, the bloke is ONSIDE.

He wasn't interfering in any way with the mix up, a different player was, and he was onside too.

Shocking from Tanner. Can't be doing that sort of thing, very dangerous.

We move on.

Edited November 2, 2022 by AppyDAZE

[Redrascal2]

50 minutes ago, Jerseybean said:

Paul Heckingbottom's reaction

That's the worst win I've had here. I felt our experience really came to the fore.

I can really feel for Nigel, so I'm not going to be smug about it but you've got to win.

They were the better team in most departments but we defended our box.

 

Nice to see a Manager being so honest and fair in his post match comments. Good on you Mr Heckingbottom.

[lager loud]

5 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

 

The moment Vyner (not his fault) heads it backwards after being put off, the bloke is ONSIDE.

He wasn't interfering in any way with the mix up, a different player was, and he was onside too.

Sharp was (marginally) offside when the ball was played across. Looked pretty clear on the Sky freeze frame last night. And shouldn’t have been a difficult one for a professional linesman to spot.

[Mr Popodopolous]

20 minutes ago, lager loud said:

Sharp was (marginally) offside when the ball was played across. Looked pretty clear on the Sky freeze frame last night. And shouldn’t have been a difficult one for a professional linesman to spot.

I'm unsure. Watched it a couple of times just now and I dunno...foul in the build-up claim I've seen elsewhere also seems sketchy.

Albeit, looked like Vyner was tugged in the picture by @The Constant Rabbit so maybe!!

We certainly don't get the rub of the green though, irrespective of some individual decisions.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Mr Popodopolous

[AppyDAZE]

6 minutes ago, lager loud said:

Sharp was (marginally) offside when the ball was played across. Looked pretty clear on the Sky freeze frame last night. And shouldn’t have been a difficult one for a professional linesman to spot.

Oh,  I see. Sorry missed that bit

 

[W-S-M Seagull]

11 hours ago, billywedlock said:

How did we lose that ? We certainly needed to take our chances . Sheffield looked a bottom 4 side not top 4 . Absolutely rubbish team compared to last season . We were our own worst enemies again. 

I text my friend at half time and I said were going to lose this. I said to him that we are doing everything possible to try and mot win the most easiest game we've had for a number of years. 

Sheffield then scored before I had even got back to my seat. 

[Super]

2 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

I text my friend at half time and I said were going to lose this. I said to him that we are doing everything possible to try and mot win the most easiest game we've had for a number of years. 

Sheffield then scored before I had even got back to my seat. 

How did you come to that conclusion?

[W-S-M Seagull]

21 minutes ago, AppyDAZE said:

Like you, I'd like to see the one on Wells for a possible pen and the nasty one on Williams again.

Just watched the one on Sky, no complaints with their goal.

The moment Vyner (not his fault) heads it backwards after being put off, the bloke is ONSIDE.

He wasn't interfering in any way with the mix up, a different player was, and he was onside too.

Shocking from Tanner. Can't be doing that sort of thing, very dangerous.

We move on.

The moment their player crossed the ball into the box, the flag should have went up for offside. Its as simple as that. Vyner should never have even had to of got his head on it as the flag should have been up. 

[BTRFTG]

7 minutes ago, lager loud said:

Sharp was (marginally) offside when the ball was played across. Looked pretty clear on the Sky freeze frame last night. And shouldn’t have been a difficult one for a professional linesman to spot.

Amazing how many folks debate offside/onside decisions each week yet clearly haven't the first inkling of what Law 11 says or how it operates. The professional officials saw what happened and enforced Law 11 accordingly. Here's why.

When the ball's played over both Sharp &  Ndiaye are in offside positions but are NOT offside (that's default position of Law 11.) Having assessed if a player is in an offside position (they both were,) ask what offence is the player committing to be adjudged offside? No offence = No offside.

Should either player have first touched the ball when crossed they then would have become offside and a foul committed.

Should either player have impeded the movement of or impacted the vision of a City player (accidental,) or deliberately take action themselves to impact an opponent or attempt to play the ball, then they would have become offside and a foul committed.

Ndiaye being behind and yards from both Tanner & Vyner commits no offence. Sharp, rather than impeding Tanner or Vyner is actually impeded himself by them - Vyner jumps backwards into him, Tanner pushes him in the back to prevent him jumping for the ball and himself jumps over Sharp. Sharp sandwiched therefore commits no offence and is not offside.

As soon as Vyner touches the ball both opponents are onside.

 

 

[The Original OTIB]

10 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Amazing how many folks debate offside/onside decisions each week yet clearly haven't the first inkling of what Law 11 says or how it operates. The professional officials saw what happened and enforced Law 11 accordingly. Here's why.

When the ball's played over both Sharp &  Ndiaye are in offside positions but are NOT offside (that's default position of Law 11.) Having assessed if a player is in an offside position (they both were,) ask what offence is the player committing to be adjudged offside? No offence = No offside.

Should either player have first touched the ball when crossed they then would have become offside and a foul committed.

Should either player have impeded the movement of or impacted the vision of a City player (accidental,) or deliberately take action themselves to impact an opponent or attempt to play the ball, then they would have become offside and a foul committed.

Ndiaye being behind and yards from both Tanner & Vyner commits no offence. Sharp, rather than impeding Tanner or Vyner is actually impeded himself by them - Vyner jumps backwards into him, Tanner pushes him in the back to prevent him jumping for the ball and himself jumps over Sharp. Sharp sandwiched therefore commits no offence and is not offside.

As soon as Vyner touches the ball both opponents are onside.

 

 

Vyner jumps backwards into him? Yeah, right ...

[BTRFTG]

13 hours ago, bexhill reds said:

Poor decision by the ref, Scott push led and pulled to the floor, then he gives the foul the other way when Scott tries to tackle back, the he gets booked. Basham lots of little fouls all over the place but that’s ok ref

Scott's, as again demonstrated last night, is a terrific player in space with ball at feet.

Unfortunately for him and City he's weak in the challenge. Several times a game you'll see him bested by his opponent, deliberately fall over then attempt to grab the ball irrespective of referee and whistle. Fools nobody, certainly not the officials. Last night he did so six or seven times. Usually he gets booked for handling the ball though last night he petulantly fouled his opponent in front of the ref because he'd again been found out.

What makes it harder for Scott is he isn't the only City player to play-act in this way, hence officials spot a trend. Sykes does so constantly, Tanner & Pring less frequently but are still serial offenders. Perhaps its something that's taught in the academy?

[redkev]

2 hours ago, brad blit said:

Wing backs are not working, and our defensive issues as quite evident to see (that stat on Sky Sports last night was shocking) 

NP needs to move away from 352 and go for a variation of Liverpool 433 or 4312 so we can start controlling middle of the pitch with James, Scott and Williams. The full backs can still offer attacking width but having 3 in the middle means someone can shield back 4 and help bring out ball from defence, this formation will also give Naismith more passing options from the back

The defence been ok last 2 games if we had if taken our chances we would of win both games comfortably 

[AppyDAZE]

37 minutes ago, W-S-M Seagull said:

The moment their player crossed the ball into the box, the flag should have went up for offside. Its as simple as that. Vyner should never have even had to of got his head on it as the flag should have been up. 

I explained earlier that I didn't know Sharp was offside. Now I know that, I agree it shouldn't have counted.

[BTRFTG]

6 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Vyner jumps backwards into him? Yeah, right ...

Before Vyner gets anywhere near Sharp Tanner's already pushing him in the back to climb over him and, yes, Vyner's moving and jumping backwards into him.

[lager loud]

24 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Amazing how many folks debate offside/onside decisions each week yet clearly haven't the first inkling of what Law 11 says or how it operates. The professional officials saw what happened and enforced Law 11 accordingly. Here's why.

When the ball's played over both Sharp &  Ndiaye are in offside positions but are NOT offside (that's default position of Law 11.) Having assessed if a player is in an offside position (they both were,) ask what offence is the player committing to be adjudged offside? No offence = No offside.

Should either player have first touched the ball when crossed they then would have become offside and a foul committed.

Should either player have impeded the movement of or impacted the vision of a City player (accidental,) or deliberately take action themselves to impact an opponent or attempt to play the ball, then they would have become offside and a foul committed.

Ndiaye being behind and yards from both Tanner & Vyner commits no offence. Sharp, rather than impeding Tanner or Vyner is actually impeded himself by them - Vyner jumps backwards into him, Tanner pushes him in the back to prevent him jumping for the ball and himself jumps over Sharp. Sharp sandwiched therefore commits no offence and is not offside.

As soon as Vyner touches the ball both opponents are onside.

 

 

I’m quite happy to admit that I don’t keep up to date with every change in the laws and their interpretation. So I had a look at Rule 11 in the FA’s Laws of the Game 22/23 (copied, badly, due to formatting issues, below). There are more ways a player can become offside than you mentioned.

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an or opponent to play the ball

Unless you believe Sharp was neither “challenging for the ball”, nor “attempting to play the ball which is close”, nor “making an obvious action which clearly impacts [either Vyner’s or Tanners] ability…to play the ball” then he’s offside. I’d argue he was doing at least two of these.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

Really, really disappointed in Pearson’s post match comments singling out the defence for criticism for conceding a goal.  Surely the issue last night was not delivering at the other end of the pitch??

I think Tanner, Pring and (particularly) Vyner have been magnificent in the past two matches,

[The Original OTIB]

15 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Before Vyner gets anywhere near Sharp Tanner's already pushing him in the back to climb over him and, yes, Vyner's moving and jumping backwards into him.

Are you saying that Sharp is fouled and it is therefore a penalty before he pulls Vyner's shirt, which, technically, is also a foul? The shirt tug is indisputable, why would Sharp wish to impede (asserted by you) himself further by pulling Vyner on to him?

[Bris Red]

2 hours ago, Jerseybean said:

Paul Heckingbottom's reaction

That's the worst win I've had here. I felt our experience really came to the fore.

I can really feel for Nigel, so I'm not going to be smug about it but you've got to win.

They were the better team in most departments but we defended our box.

 

Fair play for him coming out and saying that. They were truly awful on the night.

[BTRFTG]

36 minutes ago, lager loud said:

I’m quite happy to admit that I don’t keep up to date with every change in the laws and their interpretation. So I had a look at Rule 11 in the FA’s Laws of the Game 22/23 (copied, badly, due to formatting issues, below). There are more ways a player can become offside than you mentioned.

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball or
• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an or opponent to play the ball

Unless you believe Sharp was neither “challenging for the ball”, nor “attempting to play the ball which is close”, nor “making an obvious action which clearly impacts [either Vyner’s or Tanners] ability…to play the ball” then he’s offside. I’d argue he was doing at least two of these.

God only knows what you make of Tanner's push in Sharp's back in the build up then......

Shall we agree a soft penalty to them?

[BTRFTG]

33 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

Are you saying that Sharp is fouled and it is therefore a penalty before he pulls Vyner's shirt, which, technically, is also a foul? The shirt tug is indisputable, why would Sharp wish to impede (asserted by you) himself further by pulling Vyner on to him?

If you want hundreds of soft penalties per game then, yes, its a penalty to them.

Tanner pushes into and rises up over Sharp, who you'll note never leaves the ground. Maybe Sharp puts his arms out and grabs as he sees Vyner jumping back into him, who knows?

The whole point being Sharp was not offside, as ruled by the officials for good reason. Rather than debate that we should be analyzing why, for the umpteenth time this season, we leaked a soppy goal because two defenders went for the same header?  If Tanner goes solo he wins it every time. If he doesn't win it solo the chances of Sharp getting both power and direction to beat the well-positioned O'Leary are negligible. As was, Vyner jumping backwards, concertinaing Sharp into Tanner thus impeding Tanner's ability to win the header, knocking the ball beyond Tanner's reach to an opponent did for us.

[Dan Robin]

6 hours ago, RedM said:

I really think Refs are scared to give us a penalty now, after all the decision will be scrutinised to death. They will always be the one who gave us a pen after x amount of time, so will want any decision to be so clear cut its almost ridiculous.

Why they should be scared?!?

Because the Refs Association doesn't want us to be awarded correct favourable decisions and would punish them if they gave us what we deserve?

Does the EFL want a Championship with more big fishes, and Bristol City is not considered enough "glamour" to stay in the division? Are some clubs making pression in that way, indirectly involving referees?

Is there a match-fixing/illegal betting system that involves a number of referees so not giving penalty, reds etc. to specific teams makes them gain money?

I don't have the answer, but at this point we can't continue to ignore that something really suspect is happening behind the scenes. Surely the club shouldn't, if respect and equality (and more points on the table when deserved) are wanted.

 

We are all aware of our squad's weaknesses and some errors made by the club, but it's a fact that  refereeings have played a ( part in our bad results in recent seasons.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Dan Robin

[Midred]

57 minutes ago, Bris Red said:

Fair play for him coming out and saying that. They were truly awful on the night.

I wonder if he could explain what he means by "experience" ? 

[The Original OTIB]

27 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

If you want hundreds of soft penalties per game then, yes, its a penalty to them.

Tanner pushes into and rises up over Sharp, who you'll note never leaves the ground. Maybe Sharp puts his arms out and grabs as he sees Vyner jumping back into him, who knows?

The whole point being Sharp was not offside, as ruled by the officials for good reason. Rather than debate that we should be analyzing why, for the umpteenth time this season, we leaked a soppy goal because two defenders went for the same header?  If Tanner goes solo he wins it every time. If he doesn't win it solo the chances of Sharp getting both power and direction to beat the well-positioned O'Leary are negligible. As was, Vyner jumping backwards, concertinaing Sharp into Tanner thus impeding Tanner's ability to win the header, knocking the ball beyond Tanner's reach to an opponent did for us.

I don't, I'm attempting to rationalise your analysis. There is contact between all parties in the middle, yet, contrary to your proposal, Sharp, who is in an offside position when the ball is played, can be deemed offside the moment he pulls Vyner's shirt (pic makes it clear that he did), ergo, interfering with an opponent, i.e., making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.  It's not as simple as you make out. It isn't an either or based on your interpretation of the law. That aside, Tanner is in the wrong position and should be marking the scorer.

[Lew-T]

50 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

God only knows what you make of Tanner's push in Sharp's back in the build up then......

Shall we agree a soft penalty to them?

Sharp is offside. Done.

[The Original OTIB]

43 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

I don't, I'm attempting to rationalise your analysis. There is contact between all parties in the middle, yet, contrary to your proposal, Sharp, who is in an offside position when the ball is played, can be deemed offside the moment he pulls Vyner's shirt (pic makes it clear that he did), ergo, interfering with an opponent, i.e., making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.  It's not as simple as you make out. It isn't an either or based on your interpretation of the law. That aside, Tanner is in the wrong position and should be marking the scorer.

Here's Vyner "jumping backwards" into Sharp... er, not. Vyner bent backwards because he was pulled backwards (NB boot up the 'arris as well). As to why Sykes went wandering inwards when there was a spare man, well, just typical of our usual ball watching:

well set for the header before the shirt tug:

 

 

[italian dave]

2 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Amazing how many folks debate offside/onside decisions each week yet clearly haven't the first inkling of what Law 11 says or how it operates. The professional officials saw what happened and enforced Law 11 accordingly. Here's why.

When the ball's played over both Sharp &  Ndiaye are in offside positions but are NOT offside (that's default position of Law 11.) Having assessed if a player is in an offside position (they both were,) ask what offence is the player committing to be adjudged offside? No offence = No offside.

Should either player have first touched the ball when crossed they then would have become offside and a foul committed.

Should either player have impeded the movement of or impacted the vision of a City player (accidental,) or deliberately take action themselves to impact an opponent or attempt to play the ball, then they would have become offside and a foul committed.

Ndiaye being behind and yards from both Tanner & Vyner commits no offence. Sharp, rather than impeding Tanner or Vyner is actually impeded himself by them - Vyner jumps backwards into him, Tanner pushes him in the back to prevent him jumping for the ball and himself jumps over Sharp. Sharp sandwiched therefore commits no offence and is not offside.

As soon as Vyner touches the ball both opponents are onside.

 

 

My view is that Sharp was guilty of pretty much all those things in your 4th para! 

[The Original OTIB]

Just now, italian dave said:

My view is that Sharp was guilty of pretty much all those things in your 4th para! 

[BTRFTG]

51 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

I don't, I'm attempting to rationalise your analysis. There is contact between all parties in the middle, yet, contrary to your proposal, Sharp, who is in an offside position when the ball is played, can be deemed offside the moment he pulls Vyner's shirt (pic makes it clear that he did), ergo, interfering with an opponent, i.e., making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.  It's not as simple as you make out. It isn't an either or based on your interpretation of the law. That aside, Tanner is in the wrong position and should be marking the scorer.

Shirt tug, as already discussed, matters not given prior penalty against Tanner for pushing him, perhaps causing Sharp's arms out.

It IS a binary interpretation based on Law 11. The officials decided Sharp, in an offside position, did not cause an offence.

I'd also not criticise Tanner for leaving Ndiaye. Vyner was out of position and struggling to cover Sharp. Had Vyner not intervened Tanner had him covered. Vyner's indecision was root cause.

[BTRFTG]

3 minutes ago, italian dave said:

My view is that Sharp was guilty of pretty much all those things in your 4th para! 

Shame you weren't the ref.

[The Original OTIB]

2 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Shirt tug, as already discussed, matters not given prior penalty against Tanner for pushing him, perhaps causing Sharp's arms out.

It IS a binary interpretation based on Law 11. The officials decided Sharp, in an offside position, did not cause an offence.

I'd also not criticise Tanner for leaving Ndiaye. Vyner was out of position and struggling to cover Sharp. Had Vyner not intervened Tanner had him covered. Vyner's indecision was root cause.

It was a penalty then? Easy to blame Vyner, but the tug stops him getting a clean header. Sykes and Tanner should be covering the scorer.

[BTRFTG]

Just now, The Original OTIB said:

It was a penalty then? Easy to blame Vyner, but the tug stops him getting a clean header. Sykes and Tanner should be covering the scorer.

Don't disagree re Sykes but are you sure the shirt tug didn't occur when Vyner was coming back down? From your screenshot difficult to tell where the ball is but looks as though he's already nodded it out of screen. Looks, too, like Sharp is kicking Vyner up the arse, save he isn't .

We've looked far more solid in the box now Bentley's been dropped but we have this recurring issue of with a mixture of zone and man marking we've multiple heads going for the same ball and all they do is get in each other's way.

[italian dave]

17 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Shame you weren't the ref.

I often think just that!!

[BTRFTG]

34 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

It was a penalty then? Easy to blame Vyner, but the tug stops him getting a clean header. Sykes and Tanner should be covering the scorer.

Not looking to blame Vyner who I thought played well again last night but I've just re-watched the goal a couple of times. With the ball about to come over he's a fair distance from Sharp who has Tanner in close attendance. Just as its about to be played he stops to check the line and gestures to Tanner to pick up Ndiaye in the belief he has Sharp covered. Except he's very slow react to the cross forcing Tanner to go with and through Sharp. Tanner moves a good yard or two before Vyner starts back-pedaling.

But defence didn't cost us. Again it was poor execution in the box coupled with woefully shocking distribution in the final third that did for us.

[Denbury Red]

Just watched the post match comments having recorded the game on Sky last night and all the pundits agree that Sharp was offside. 
 

Even the Sheff Utd women player - they all agreed it should have been disallowed.

They also agreed that Norwood should have been sent off!

VAR would have provided the correct decision for both of these!

Poor ref’s are costing us and it’s about time this was resolved!

[Midred]

It amazes me how a referee can process all those decisions in a split second. If the players had been facing the other way would the linesman on the other side have had a better view? Not that he would have intervened of course! 

Have the offside laws been made so difficult that referees can have no consistency? 

Earlier in the first half the pundits were questioning whether one of our moves ruled offside was actually offside!