Sheffield United at home match thread

[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!