Champions League 2019-20: The Final Countdown

Pesky Pole

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2001
994
Phoenixville, PA
Great cutback and pass by Sterling but the defender (#5) was apparently worried Sterling was going to beat him by going into the stands there.

And I finish that in my Sunday league so yes, Henderson probably does too. of course I never make the run In the first place.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
42,280
can you run out of the play by stepping over the ball? I guess I remember Negredo ignoring a pass to let it run once
I guess the ruling is he didn't really interfere with the play since he ran away from the ball and no one followed him. Lyon still got lucky as the shot was drilled right at the keeper, but got under him.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
18,346
Philadelphia
I guess the ruling is he didn't really interfere with the play since he ran away from the ball and no one followed him. Lyon still got lucky as the shot was drilled right at the keeper, but got under him.
He didn’t so much run away from the ball as slow down and let it go through his legs.

I think the call is pretty questionable. City were foolish to stop playing but you can understand why they thought it would be called offsides when the player is obviously off, the ball is heading right toward him, and he is still moving toward goal.
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
14,961
Pittsburgh, PA
This whole selective-enforcement, unwritten-rules nonsense is one of the things that drives me absolute battiest about football. They'll review an offside call with a fucking electron microscope to see if a player's past the last defender, but in two clear-as-day applications of the rules, they just complete ignore what the IFAB has said are the right calls.

The result wasn't unfair. Sterling pulling a Wondo and then Ederson forgetting basic goalkeeping principles pretty much should have locked up a 1-2 result for Lyon, shitty call or no. But that goal changed the game, changed the ability of City to stick to their tactics with a tied match.

1) Here today, you've got a stone-cold case of offside offense

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
  1. interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
  2. interfering with an opponent by:
  3. preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  4. challenging an opponent for the ball or
  5. clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  6. making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Having it played through your legs only to let it go to a teammate is a pretty obvious instance of #5, I really don't think there's a question. This is a textbook case of it, it's the exact situation for why that rule is there, and the ref just said "nah".

2) Handballs in the box. Following up on last year's UCL final, the IFAB went to some length to change the handball rules to prevent cheap penalty kicks from being awarded (and even being strategically sought). e.g.

“For the purposes of determining handball offences, the ‘arm’ stops at the bottom of the armpit.”
- we saw a penalty given just the other day for hitting someone's shoulder

(A) The following ‘handball’ situations, even if accidental, will be a free kick:
  1. the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player’s hand/arm
  2. a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
  3. the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
  4. the ball touches a player’s hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)
(B) The following will not usually be a free kick, unless they are one of the above situations:
  1. the ball touches a player’s hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
  2. the ball touches a player’s hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
  3. if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
The whole "unnaturally bigger" thing (A-3 / B-2) has gotten entirely ignored with respect to hitting an arm that is literally right by the torso, or used to defend the front of the body (or in Pogba's case, the face). Here's an easy test: if the arm had been amputated, would the ball have hit the body? If yes, then the body was not unnaturally bigger, so not a handball.

Maybe we need a "rules and complaining about rules and calls" thread. Or did we have one?
 

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
13,250
Good for Lyon. The non-PSG Ligue 1 teams get overlooked in Europe but those squads do yeoman's work developing young players who are then signed by the rich clubs, happy to see them, like Ajax last year, getting a run in Champions League.

Also Peter Drury's concluding call was "The club from the gastronomical capital of France have cooked up something sumptuous."
 

SocrManiac

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
3,701
Somers, CT
I agree with everything you said, Insta- it was offside, period. There’s no other room for interpretation.

That said, Lyon were denied a pretty stone cold penalty when Walker decided shoving his opponent aside was the same as tackling at 70’. That could should have given Lyon the 2-1 and been the same game changer that the offside goal provided.

Of course, if Ederson played at a Sunday League level nobody is even having this conversation.
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,577
I agree with everything you said, Insta- it was offside, period. There’s no other room for interpretation.
I haven't reffed in a few years, but there's no way that should be ruled onside.

The spirit of the rule is fine but the way it was enforced are total incompetence or dishonest. Im not sure how any AR can say he had no impact on the mindset of the goalie. Yes he didn't put a foot on the ball but by positioning it makes everyone behave differently when you are over the ball like that.
 

SocrManiac

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
3,701
Somers, CT
I haven't reffed in a few years, but there's no way that should be ruled onside.

The spirit of the rule is fine but the way it was enforced are total incompetence or dishonest. Im not sure how any AR can say he had no impact on the mindset of the goalie. Yes he didn't put a foot on the ball but by positioning it makes everyone behave differently when you are over the ball like that.
It happened 50 yards from goal.The goalkeeper’s mindset isn’t going to change in the slightest.
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,577
It happened 50 yards from goal.The goalkeeper’s mindset isn’t going to change in the slightest.
I mean if you think the guy is clearly offside maybe you let off maybe you dont rush out like a madman. When it's that blatant it's gotta be called.
 

SocrManiac

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
3,701
Somers, CT
I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t factor. Goalkeepers will still make saves after a whistle has blown (and did even before the VAR rules made it crucial). Nothing in Ederson’s response suggests he was waiting for the play to be pulled back.

Look at the clip: https://www.clippituser.tv/c/egvywx

There’s an eternity there. If it did affect him, he had plenty of time to reset and do his job properly. Unfortunately for him, a breakaway starting so far away can be difficult to gage. Positioning has never been a strength and he made several wrong decisions culminating in a reaction failure (normally his best goalkeeping skill).
 

InstaFace

MDLzera
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
14,961
Pittsburgh, PA
Moreover, he gained an advantage from being offside and having the ball played to him, even if he didn't control it - the covering defenders rushed to him, rather than to his onside teammate, forcing a running path that cost them a couple steps in trying to get back and cover the attack. It's got very little to do with Ederson.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
29,979
AZ
The internet seems to be divided whether that was active play.

Seems maybe the rule is not clear. Watching live my understanding of the rule was that it was not offside offense because he took no defender with him and did not play the ball. Half the internet agrees. Half does not. Whomever is right that is a problem.
 

SocrManiac

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
3,701
Somers, CT
The internet seems to be divided whether that was active play.

Seems maybe the rule is not clear. Watching live my understanding of the rule was that it was not offside offense because he took no defender with him and did not play the ball. Half the internet agrees. Half does not. Whomever is right that is a problem.
It continues to be FIFA’s version of the NFL’s catch rule. They’re so desperate to get words on paper that encompass every situation that it becomes impossible to legislate correctly on the pitch.
 

teddykgb

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
7,688
Chelmsford, MA
In the end I have no sympathy for my team because City are supposed to be the better side and played like crap so you get what you deserve. I said the same after yet another horrible VAR situation last year against Spurs. But I’d probably be impossible to deal with today had that happened against Bayern. This is a hard competition to win and it requires some good fortune. City keep finding themselves on the absolute edge of these poorly written rules and it’s tiring.

From a generic football point of view, I think it is clear that the intent of the rule is to not automatically rule offside good goals just because a player somewhere was in an offside position. Most of the controversy with this rule has ended up being on shots which is why a lot of the language centers on the points that it does. That’s probably at least partly because what happened yesterday gets whistled for offside 95% of the time and nobody thinks much of it.

It’s just as problematic to me that the trip on Laporte isn’t called. If we must persist with this VAR nonsense then we really need to ensure small game changing things like that are corrected. One of the worst aspects of the implementation we have seen imo is the tendency for the ref to listen to the VAR in his ear over seeing the video. I dont know if the field ref blows the foul if he sees it himself but the faceless reviewer isn’t doing anything for the sport. It’s already a slow soul destroying mess, make them run over to the screen and look at it themselves if it is at all controversial.
Because it was brought up, I thought the no call on Walker was a good call. He definitely pushed out with his hands and it could have been called but I think that was one of those which looks worse in slow motion and Cornet had spent the entire match crumpling at first touch. He went down way too easily and way too late in relation to the touch and it would have been very harsh/soft. It falls under the “I’ve seen them given” category but almost every “I’ve seen them given “ penalty is a crap, lawyerly penalty the sport doesn’t need.
Which brings me back to much hated VAR. It is not a new complaint but aside from sucking the joy out of every goal I think it is making it hard for refs to manage the ebb and flow of a match properly. Having followed this sport my whole life, officiating it has always been a mix of art and science. Refs have always been expected to keep an in match mental file on who has been fouling persistently, diving, whining, etc. I’ve always felt that it is supposed to inform their views and decisions. Maybe that’s a quaint or bad viewpoint, but it’s engrained in me from my own crap years of playing and watching. Now we selectively apply rigorous analysis to some (but not all) incidents and I dont know how or if refs can apply the “that looks a bit bad but that player has lost the benefit of the doubt because he’s been diving and surrounding me all match” standard. This is a contact sport, there will always be contact which can justify a penalty. There was always this in game risk reward to your behavior which I think VAR is driving out
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
18,346
Philadelphia
The internet seems to be divided whether that was active play.

Seems maybe the rule is not clear. Watching live my understanding of the rule was that it was not offside offense because he took no defender with him and did not play the ball. Half the internet agrees. Half does not. Whomever is right that is a problem.
The language of the rule isn't particularly clear but I think its obvious that this such have been deemed active play by the spirit of the rules. This wasn't a case where the guy was offside and he just walks back toward his own goal to get onside and lets the rest of the play continue. Or a case where its not really clear who the ball is played to but the offside guy doesn't go for it. The ball was played directly toward him and he continued to jog forward to meet the path of the ball and made it look like he was going to receive the ball, then he dummied it at the last minute through his legs. Meanwhile, the defenders had every reason to believe that he was going to be called offside. Before tripping, LaPorte changes his recovery run precisely to play him offsides.

If this isn't offsides, its basically impossible to pull an offsides trap because the other team can always have the trapped player give up on playing the ball at the last minute and a delayed runner charge toward goal.
 

tmracht

Well-Known Member
Silver Supporter
SoSH Member
Aug 19, 2009
1,577
Moreover, he gained an advantage from being offside and having the ball played to him, even if he didn't control it - the covering defenders rushed to him, rather than to his onside teammate, forcing a running path that cost them a couple steps in trying to get back and cover the attack. It's got very little to do with Ederson.
Fair enough
I’m sorry, but it just doesn’t factor. Goalkeepers will still make saves after a whistle has blown (and did even before the VAR rules made it crucial). Nothing in Ederson’s response suggests he was waiting for the play to be pulled back.

Look at the clip: https://www.clippituser.tv/c/egvywx

There’s an eternity there. If it did affect him, he had plenty of time to reset and do his job properly. Unfortunately for him, a breakaway starting so far away can be difficult to gage. Positioning has never been a strength and he made several wrong decisions culminating in a reaction failure (normally his best goalkeeping skill).
Very true the outcome may be coloring my memory of him being so bad lol.
 

SocrManiac

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 15, 2006
3,701
Somers, CT
Ederson’s reflexes and athleticism are absolutely incredible. Coupled with strength with the ball at his feet. He’s an above average goalkeeper.

The biggest knock against him is his positioning. He has absolutely no clue where he is relative to his goal. Those reflexes and leaping ability mostly make up for it. This has lead to some truly spectacular saves on shots a correctly placed keeper would routinely catch or comfortably parry. He will not age well as his explosiveness diminishes and reaction times increase.

The other piece holding him back is his decision making, and that’s what let him down here. He was caught in absolute no-man’s land and almost totally flat footed. I think that’s why Dembélé pulled the trigger. He looked up and saw Ederson unprepared for a shot. He took a bad one but Ederson had no time to set and react.