James P wrote:The time shown on the board is the minimum amount of injury time to be played. Always has been.
True though more than once I have seen less than the specified time played. Though to be fair more often abroad than here.
Moderator: Gnome
James P wrote:The time shown on the board is the minimum amount of injury time to be played. Always has been.
Beavis Danzig wrote:if we play an offside trap, it relies on the officials doing their jobs and giving us the benefit of the doubt.
can't see it working till VAR comes in.
It's been decades since Salah would have been flagged offside when the ball is passed to Robertson. We can't complain about that one.The Old Man of Storr wrote: I agree - I thought I knew how that new offside rule works but the way I interpreted it I wouldn't have allowed Salah's goal to stand - according to the old rules he was obviously offside then he stops his run and waits until he's level with our last defenders , receives the pass and scores - this new ruling makes it more complicated for fan and official alike and seems more open to interpretation than before . By interpretation I mean of course , in favour to whoever West Ham play .
James P wrote:The time shown on the board is the minimum amount of injury time to be played. Always has been.
I asked this very same question last season (or previous) after we'd conceded a losing goal in extra, extra stoppage time, long after the minimum had expired. And there was another occasion we had an opponent score in injury time, the ref allowed their celebrations for about a minute and half then blew the whistle as soon as we could kick off. How come no stoppages were added for that? A further time we were breaking on the counter attack when awarded a free kick that the ref then didn't allow to be taken - the point of a free kick is to penalise the offending team, not reward them!JLCABA wrote:So ( given there are no fouls .. substitutions etc etc ) what makes a ref decide how long of is enough
Is the only feasible explanation I can find.ageing hammer wrote:Depends on if West Ham are winning or losing, if we are winning it can be 3 or 4 mins more added on, if we are losing it is blown up bang on time.
The 2nd goal is almost impossible to defend against as a defender, As a back four you are looking along the line. You see the three central players in the box and you push up to play them offside. This is the sensible decision as the intended receiver was one of these three players and thus if they receive it directly (which was the aim of the pass) they are offside, job doneCuenca 'ammer wrote:Defend the ball until the flag goes up and the referees whistle rules either goal or offside..
no excuses..
]
Of course we lost because we were pony but it does make me laugh how often you have posted on here about us being complainers when it comes to bias.Crouchend_Hammer wrote:One game in and we already have the multitude of posts moaning about refereeing decisions/ Sky conspiracy/ poor little old West Ham blah blah!
We lost because we were pony
VAR will be in place next season. The other 4 big leagues are using it this year, so no reason to suggest we won't have it
However, VAR wouldn't help with goal 2 as that it still down to interpretation of the law. The changes in offside laws are stupid IMHO (and make it almost impossible to defend in certain situations) but they are what they are
Whilst I agree with this to a certain extent (and our defence were caught flat footed), the unusual circumstances i.e. Milner arriving very very late to a ball that nearly everyone thought was going out (even their strikers), and the speed of the delivery, means I am not surprised our defenders assumed the danger had passed and they had done what they were supposed to do (and, done it successfully)James P wrote:What the players need to do is head back towards the goal and the "offside" attackers once the cross has come in from the left.
Once the winger has crossed it that "offside trap" has either been successful or it hasn't. Our defenders just stand stock still seemingly praying "please give offside! please give offside!" Once the cross is delivered the lino will either give it or he won't and you need to be on your toes in case he, correctly, doesn't give it.
Basically offside traps are folly and belong back in the 80s.
Of course it was offside. A long way off. However, are we going to have every match thread this season filled up with posts bemoaning refereeing decisions, as is usually the case?Aztec Hammer wrote:
Of course we lost because we were pony but it does make me laugh how often you have posted on here about us being complainers when it comes to bias.
The third goal was miles offside, three of the ****ers standing on the other side of the last defender, including the bloke who kicked it in the goal. Away game at Anfield. Are you surprised by this? I suppose you think we would've been given the same ridiculous call if was the reverse fixture?
The third goal is clearly offside. No one is saying otherwise. But we've also had complaints about fixture list bias, offside for both the first two goals (they weren't) and a complaint that the whistle wasn't blown dead on 46 minutes at the end of the first half (which it isn't supposed to be).Aztec Hammer wrote:Of course we lost because we were pony but it does make me laugh how often you have posted on here about us being complainers when it comes to bias.
The third goal was miles offside, three of the ****ers standing on the other side of the last defender, including the bloke who kicked it in the goal. Away game at Anfield. Are you surprised by this? I suppose you think we would've been given the same ridiculous call if was the reverse fixture?
Why wouldn't weCrouchend_Hammer wrote:However, are we going to have every match thread this season filled up with posts bemoaning refereeing decisions, as is usually the case?