A-League Mens 25/26 - Round 13

[JS96]

View attachment 5026

Played in that when it was Grahame Park as a kid. Still remember the chain link fence and two field width and the far corner with bushes next to the rail line.

 

[southmelb]

He was never saving that and yet its still the correct decision.

 

[NoMates]

Not a Victory fan but damn Adelaide fluke another win with bias reffing helping them out and VAR. It soured the match in wot was a good for a neutral.

 

[HappyGuus]

He was never saving that and yet its still the correct decision.

Unfortunately agree. I blame Jelacic for plodding his way back onto the pitch and directly in front of the keeper. WTF was he thinking? Zero awareness.

 

[WhatAmIWatching]

Unfortunately agree. I blame Jelacic for plodding his way back onto the pitch and directly in front of the keeper. WTF was he thinking? Zero awareness.

Fully agree with you on this. But it has to be said that Jelacic is not the only one that is slow to get back onside or do not read the situation. It's up to the coaches to get players to be disciplined.

 

[ashtongate]

Terrible effort by VAR for disallowing goals for both sides. Adelaide completed lengthy goal celebrations and Vic kicked off before the VAR intervention- that should not happen. Victory's goal looked legit- refs looked at VAR for 3 minutes before disallowing it. That is just crazy.

 

[HappyGuus]

Lots going on here.
1. Jelacic is offside and in the line of the ball when struck
2. Reds defender was blocking the keeper's view anyway
3. No keeper is saving it regardless



It's one for the rules vs common sense.
What's great is that everyone out there is taking about it hahaha.

 

[melbcityguy]

Even I thought victory were robbed

 

[AUFC_Fan]

Lots going on here.
1. Jelacic is offside and in the line of the ball when struck
2. Reds defender was blocking the keeper's view anyway
3. No keeper is saving it regardless

View attachment 5027

It's one for the rules vs common sense.
What's great is that everyone out there is taking about it hahaha.

nail on head

 

[Somebloke]

The fact that the ref had to stare at the video screen for ages, plus get the fourth official to watch it with him and get his opinion, surely shows that it’s not an clear and obvious error. It’s VAR overreach.

 

[JS96]

Still pissing down over Central Coast and won't let up until morning. Will 22 degrees over 3 hours dry all that water up?

I remember in Africa they'd flood the pitch the night before and it'd be dried up by kickoff.

 

[southmelb]

I picked the Adelaide offside goal straight away and couldnt understand the over the top celebrations. Honestly the winning goal wasnt far off being chalked off either (the first cross)

 

[melbcityguy]

I picked the Adelaide offside goal straight away and couldnt understand the over the top celebrations. Honestly the winning goal wasnt far off being chalked off either (the first cross)

Why have any goals at all

 

[southmelb]

Why have any goals at all

Stay behind the last defender, simple.

 

[Quicky]

Still pissing down over Central Coast and won't let up until morning. Will 22 degrees over 3 hours dry all that water up?

I remember in Africa they'd flood the pitch the night before and it'd be dried up by kickoff.

Most professional sports surfaces have good enough drainage it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[Quicky]

The fact that the ref had to stare at the video screen for ages, plus get the fourth official to watch it with him and get his opinion, surely shows that it’s not an clear and obvious error. It’s VAR overreach.

This 100%.

 

[southmelb]

The rule is pretty clear, if the keepers line of vision is blocked by a player in an offside position it doesnt matter if the ball goes between his legs or sails into the top corner (unsaveable), nothing wrong with watching it over many times to ensure the correct decision was made. As i said the behind goals vision made it clear it would eventually be overturned.

That said im all for a rule change where you can make a case by case decision, if its unsavable the goal stands.

 

[WhatAmIWatching]

The rule is pretty clear, if the keepers line of vision is blocked by a player in an offside position it doesnt matter if the ball goes between his legs or sails into the top corner (unsaveable), nothing wrong with watching it over many times to ensure the correct decision was made. As i said the behind goals vision made it clear it would eventually be overturned.

That said im all for a rule change where you can make a case by case decision, if its unsavable the goal stands.

All decisions are made on a case by case. And making it more vague, will only lead to greater inconsistency which will infuriate me even more and at my age that could have grave consequences.

 

[southmelb]

All decisions are made on a case by case. And making it more vague, will only lead to greater inconsistency which will infuriate me even more and at my age that could have grave consequences.

Case by case meaning if the offending player is on the other side of the goal it would stand. Goals like last nights have been routinely denied in the leagues i watch.

 

[tsf]

The rule is pretty clear, if the keepers line of vision is blocked by a player in an offside position it doesnt matter if the ball goes between his legs or sails into the top corner (unsaveable), nothing wrong with watching it over many times to ensure the correct decision was made. As i said the behind goals vision made it clear it would eventually be overturned.

That said im all for a rule change where you can make a case by case decision, if its unsavable the goal stands.

The rule is clear? Is that why it took ten minutes and a panel to decide