La Liga 2019/20

[serghei]

80% of the mistake errors that happen during a football match can be argued in the opposite way.

Like the offside vs Sociedad. That's a bogus call. That Sociedad player smashed it into the net, with a great shot, Curtois was nowhere near that, went for the shot right away. Clear goal. Can you claim offside hanging on to the tinniest technicality? . Sure you can. Was it offside? Hell no.

Technically, even this can be called offside, if you really want to go that way. At the time of the shot, Suarez is sort of on the trajectory of the keeper. But it's bogus. Shot is powerful and well placed, keeper tries to save it, but the shot is too good. Suarez doesn't even flinch to try to confuse the keeper, much like the Sociedad player.

You want proof? What for? You're just going to argue against anything that is not a stonewall situation against Madrid. Time and time again, to no end. Every close call you are judging it for Madrid. With almost no exception.

You are a professional arguer.

 

[El Gato]

@Rory


Doesn't make it any less true bro. Don't humour theories or hunches on refereeing unless they can be backed up with evidence when challenged.

E: Cheers serghei. That was also offside. As was the Alba goal past Dembele. While Real had goals like this disallowed when Varane was in the path of Modrić shot before.

You want proof? What for? You're just going to argue against anything that is not a stonewall situation against Madrid. Time and time again, to no end. Every close call you are judging it for Madrid. With almost no exception.

You are a professional arguer.

Nope I'm not. I'm asking you to provide evidence for YOUR OWN CLAIM since you're making a claim without reference to rules or data.

 

[serghei]

That was also offside. .

 

[El Gato]

Prove it wasn't. Quoting a relevant rule and how it is not being violated.

Absolutely the identical case of the keeper (who was also mad about it) not being able to see the shooter past Suarez who influenced the play in an offside position. Clear offside. Same things were called in the past. You can be as mad as you want. If it violates a rule, it's an offside.

 

[Morten]

That offside call against Sociedad, which may or may not really have been an offside, we`ve had such decisions against us as well, but i guess it doesnt count when it goes against us.

 

[serghei]

Prove it wasn't. Quoting a relevant rule and how it is not being violated.

I can't prove it wasn't. You can't prove it was.

 

[El Gato]

I can't prove it wasn't. You can't prove it was.

I just did.

And the rule was enforced in the past in other fixtures.

 

[serghei]

I just did.

No, you just think you did. .

The keeper was mad at Bernat who lost the ball trying to dribble near the box.

How do you know the keeper didn't see the shooter? If he didn't see the shooter he wouldn't go for the ball from that distance. He'd freeze, much like Stegen does .

 

[Rory]

@Rory


Doesn't make it any less true bro. Don't humour theories or hunches on refereeing unless they can be backed up with evidence when challenged.

You sound almost surprised a barca fan has these theories on a barca forum
Realistically getting the evidence for what I said would take me months so that's not going to happen. I'm just posting a comment on a barca forum about real madrid getting favourable refereeing decisions in the past because we're about to lose the league. I wouldn't get too annoyed about it mate.

 

[Rory]

In reality we don't deserve the league anyway so I'm not even that fussed about it this year. I think losing the league might give the squad a bit more motivation for the next season which we haven't had for a while. Here's to hoping anyway.

 

[El Gato]

No, you just think you did. .

Nope. I did.

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:

- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
*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 opponent to play the ball

Source: http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

Rule enforced vs Sociedad.
Not enforced vs Villarreal.
Enforced when Modrić goal was disallowed as it shot past Varane in an offside position

 

[serghei]

Prove to me that he clearly obstructed the opponent's line of vision. Show me what the keeper saw in the moment of the shot.

Sorry mate, until the keepers are wearing tiny cameras implanted in their eyes, you can't prove somebody's vision is obstructed when a player takes a shot.

To really prove it, you are missing the link between what the paper says and what the reality on the field at that moment was. So you invent the link based on what you believe. Ergo, an opinion that the reality on the field in that specific moment is exactly the type of situation that the rule book makes a direct reference to.

 

[El Gato]

Prove to me that he clearly obstructed the opponent's line of vision. Show me what the keeper saw in the moment of the shot.

Sorry mate, until the keepers are wearing tiny camera implanted in their eyes, you can't prove somebody's vision is obstructed in one a player takes a shot.

And yet here you are claiming Sociedad goal should not have been disallowed.

Yep. Correct enforcement of rules there, which was your original argument that it was a legal goal despite evidence to the contrary.

 

[serghei]

And yet here you are claiming Sociedad goal should not have been disallowed.

Yep. Correct enforcement of rules there, which was your original argument that it was a legal goal despite evidence to the contrary.

Yes, it's an opinion. In my opinion it was ruled out based on a technicality. Madrid received that goal because it was a damn fine shot. Not because the keeper was obstructed.

 

[El Gato]

Yes, it's an opinion. In my opinion it was ruled out based on a technicality. Madrid received that goal because it was a damn fine shot. Not because the keeper was obstructed.

Ruled out correctly. Because it was an offside. The keeper was obstructed, as indicated by photos from bird's eye view and his own words.

Thus making your opinion incorrect.

You sound almost surprised a barca fan has these theories on a barca forum
Realistically getting the evidence for what I said would take me months so that's not going to happen. I'm just posting a comment on a barca forum about real madrid getting favourable refereeing decisions in the past because we're about to lose the league. I wouldn't get too annoyed about it mate.

Forum doesn't really make a difference does it? Of course evidence would take time to collect for this claim. Which is why I'd be careful about making it if I can't back it up. As opposed to the case of some other people who would repeatedly state it with conviction and without evidence to support their argument, while also dismissing blatant evidence when it is presented to them. Which is intolerable and should be ridiculed if they choose not to revise their stance.
Besides claiming that Real Madrid had benefitted from refereeing decisions is absolutely fine. Nothing wrong with it. It only becomes a problem when somebody claims favouritism without proof. Based on hunches. You'd not accept it either if roles were reversed, so why should anyone else not point out the flaws in the argument?