Another what could be priceless goal while coming on as sub. Well done big fella.

Vital to the squad. Chucking Wood, Barnes and Vokes up top when we need a goal seems to be a good tactic. It worked vs WHU and if there were another 10 minutes we would’ve won that game. A vital tactic and reliable player. Need to keep him

Legend. So vital. If we grt in europe he will be even more crucial with his experience on european stage with wales.

claretrobo1 wrote:Vital to the squad. Chucking Wood, Barnes and Vokes up top when we need a goal seems to be a good tactic. It worked vs WHU and if there were another 10 minutes we would’ve won that game. A vital tactic and reliable player. Need to keep him

We didn’t need another 10mins to win that game did we?

Had a feeling all game he would change it, was begging for Sean to throw him on - didn't expect SUCH a quick impact though!

I'm glad Mariappa headed it, otherwise Vokes would have been marginally offside.

Good finish.
That was his first touch.

There's only 1?

wilks_bfc wrote:We didn’t need another 10mins to win that game did we?

When we played them at home we could have won if there was another 10 minutes as that front 3 were causing issues

claretrobo1 wrote:When we played them at home we could have won if there was another 10 minutes as that front 3 were causing issues

I thought you was meaning the game at their place the other week

FactualFrank wrote:I'm glad Mariappa headed it, otherwise Vokes would have been marginally offside.

No he wasn’t.

claretrobo1 wrote:Vital to the squad. Chucking Wood, Barnes and Vokes up top when we need a goal seems to be a good tactic. It worked vs WHU and if there were another 10 minutes we would’ve won that game. A vital tactic and reliable player. Need to keep him

Agree- caused mayhem. Very good player- we need a squad and he's a vital part of it. Happy for him.

claretrobo1 wrote:Vital to the squad. Chucking Wood, Barnes and Vokes up top when we need a goal seems to be a good tactic. It worked vs WHU and if there were another 10 minutes we would’ve won that game. A vital tactic and reliable player. Need to keep him

Agree- caused mayhem. Very good player- we need a squad and he's a vital part of it. Happy for him.

There's nothing better than a sub coming on and scoring so soon.

It's good for the manager and even better for the player.

It keeps him happy even though he's on the bench.

Sam Vokes epitomises our recent success. Along with Mee and Heaton he’s exactly what Dyche’s Burnley are all about. Hope he stays for the long term but will have to get used to playing reduced minutes.

Add Barnes to that too actually. I just love this side.

arise_sir_charge wrote:No he wasn’t.

I know he wasn't. Because their defender headed it.

Looks like he's becoming our Solskjear, which is fantastic!

Don't underestimate the work from Wood for Vokes goal, but for his 'unsettlers' Mariappa would have headed it away.

Scored 22 seconds after coming on. Fastest goal scored by a sub in the Prem this season.

FactualFrank wrote:I know he wasn't. Because their defender headed it.

No, he wasn’t offside regardless of who headed it.

1963Claret wrote:Scored 22 seconds after coming on. Fastest goal scored by a sub in the Prem this season.

That must be close to the fastest ever in the PL. Any ideas how many have been quicker?

arise_sir_charge wrote:No, he wasn’t offside regardless of who headed it.

You might not be able to reply in a decent manner, but you're right - IF the offside rule only applies if there's space between the attacking and defending player. Vokes is clearly ahead of the defender, but there's no 'space'.

And had he not headed it, Vokes would have been even further forward. But the offside rule is a bit vague, as I remember once it only applied if there was space between the attacking player vs defending. But I think they abolished that.

boatshed bill wrote:That must be close to the fastest ever in the PL. Any ideas how many have been quicker?

Fastest this season but not sure about fastest ever

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhkavhAHK3g" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Our hero.

boatshed bill wrote:That must be close to the fastest ever in the PL. Any ideas how many have been quicker?

Fastest is 6 seconds by Nicholas Bendtner (!) for Arsenal against Spurs in 2007.

1963Claret wrote:Fastest is 6 seconds by Nicholas Bendtner (!) for Arsenal against Spurs in 2007.

As time is added for the substitution I'm thinking the ref stops his watch.
From the FK being taken I make it 3secs. A new record for Sam.

Although not offside there was a clear push on their number 6 (shows clearly in photo above).
Goal should have been ruled out!

1963Claret wrote:Fastest is 6 seconds by Nicholas Bendtner (!) for Arsenal against Spurs in 2007.

Bendtner who gave himself an 11 out of 10 for perceived greatness.

chekhov wrote:Although not offside there was a clear push on their number 6 (shows clearly in photo above).
Goal should have been ruled out!

I don't see a clear push. Had there been Mariappa in particular would have been claiming. Not a single Watford player made such a claim. Don't think Vokes was in an offside position anyway although of course it's irrelevant.

chekhov wrote:Although not offside there was a clear push on their number 6 (shows clearly in photo above).
Goal should have been ruled out!

It also shows our number 9 being pushed from behind into their number 6. It would not have been disallowed!

FactualFrank wrote:
And had he not headed it, Vokes would have been even further forward. But the offside rule is a bit vague, as I remember once it only applied if there was space between the attacking player vs defending. But I think they abolished that.

Frank re offside.....

Its never been vague or ipen to interpretation. And the space' thing never existed.... That myth started after a controversial off side goal, the head of refereeing was simply remarking how difficult some offside decisions were and said 'it would be easy if there were space between the attacker and the defender " the media confused the issue in their reporting. The only only change in law came many years ago when being level became onside.

turfytopper wrote:Frank re offside.....

Its never been vague or ipen to interpretation. And the space' thing never existed.... That myth started after a controversial off side goal, the head of refereeing was simply remarking how difficult some offside decisions were and said 'it would be easy if there were space between the attacker and the defender " the media confused the issue in their reporting. The only only change in law came many years ago when being level became onside.

Ah ok fair enough. They even took this into account on MOTD many times, so no surprise many fans also took it on board.

It does beg the question on what 'level' actually is, because you can always have a leg that is offside. An arm can be offside. A head can be offside.

The rule hasn't changed as it's written in the book- but the I interpretation officials are asked to give definitely has. At one point, it was certainly the case that the interpretation was that (to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker) there was no need to flag for offside unless there was "daylight" between attacker and defender. That has clearly changed recently and it seems now the interpretation is that if any bit of the attacker is ahead of the last bit of the defender, the flag should go up.

On that basis Vokes would have been at risk of bring flagged yesterday had it come off Wood. Although I must day I prefer the old interpretation and it seems to me much easier to apply.

claretspice wrote:The rule hasn't changed as it's written in the book- but the I interpretation officials are asked to give definitely has. At one point, it was certainly the case that the interpretation was that (to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker) there was no need to flag for offside unless there was "daylight" between attacker and defender. That has clearly changed recently and it seems now the interpretation is that if any bit of the attacker is ahead of the last bit of the defender, the flag should go up.

On that basis Vokes would have been at risk of bring flagged yesterday had it come off Wood. Although I must day I prefer the old interpretation and it seems to me much easier to apply.

"daylight" - that's the word I was looking for.

But arise_sir_charge disagrees. According to him, Vokes was onside, even had it come off Wood. So there's something or somebody wrong, somewhere.

FactualFrank wrote:Ah ok fair enough. They even took this into account on MOTD many times, so no surprise many fans also took it on board.

It does beg the question on what 'level' actually is, because you can always have a leg that is offside. An arm can be offside. A head can be offside.

Don't think an arm can be offside.

taio wrote:Don't think an arm can be offside.

What body part can be?

FactualFrank wrote:What body part can be?

Any but arms and hands.

taio wrote:Any but arms and hands.

Do you think Vokes would have been offside, had it come off Wood?

FactualFrank wrote:"daylight" - that's the word I was looking for.

But arise_sir_charge disagrees. According to him, Vokes was onside, even had it come off Wood. So there's something or somebody wrong, somewhere.

Yep, daylight was the word they used at one point, I'm sure of it.

I think the problem here is that there have been so many interpretations of the rule over the year which, as I understand it, have been semi-officially sanctioned by the authorities - it means noone apart from presumably those who receive the official briefings actually know what the current approach is. I'm not sure why - I assume its partly a reaction at different times to perceived controversy, or to try and encourage more goals/stop certain types of goal scoring play at different times. Personally, I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker, so the day light rule made sense to me. But no doubt that led to some areas of grey which led to the current rule, etc.

FactualFrank wrote:Do you think Vokes would have been offside, had it come off Wood?

Don't know. It was tight. Can't tell from the above photo. Possibly but would have been a difficult call for the linesman.

FactualFrank wrote:You might not be able to reply in a decent manner, but you're right - IF the offside rule only applies if there's space between the attacking and defending player. Vokes is clearly ahead of the defender, but there's no 'space'.

And had he not headed it, Vokes would have been even further forward. But the offside rule is a bit vague, as I remember once it only applied if there was space between the attacking player vs defending. But I think they abolished that.

The ball is clearly already headed towards Vokes in the photo - if you take the shot of the frame before that then Vokes is level with the 29

chekhov wrote:Although not offside there was a clear push on their number 6 (shows clearly in photo above).
Goal should have been ruled out!

Defender's hands clearly on Wood's shoulders holding him down and pulling him back - I don't think Wood's hands are close to Mariappa

FactualFrank wrote:What body part can be?

I may be wrong, but any part of the body that can play the ball, hence excluding arms but not legs or head.

claretspice wrote:Yep, daylight was the word they used at one point, I'm sure of it.

I think the problem here is that there have been so many interpretations of the rule over the year which, as I understand it, have been semi-officially sanctioned by the authorities - it means noone apart from presumably those who receive the official briefings actually know what the current approach is. I'm not sure why - I assume its partly a reaction at different times to perceived controversy, or to try and encourage more goals/stop certain types of goal scoring play at different times. Personally, I think the benefit of the doubt should go to the attacker, so the day light rule made sense to me. But no doubt that led to some areas of grey which led to the current rule, etc.

Yeah that was what I was alluding to when I mentioned MOTD because they mentioned this several times. All in all, it was very vague. Even the pundits weren't sure.

I sometimes wonder if this is another thing that could be sorted via technology. Players wouldn't even need to wear anything extra as it could be measured via tech similar to Hawkeye. A player is offside and the referee is alerted.

FactualFrank wrote:Ah ok fair enough. They even took this into account on MOTD many times, so no surprise many fans also took it on board.

It does beg the question on what 'level' actually is, because you can always have a leg that is offside. An arm can be offside. A head can be offside.

That one's straight forward Frank.
A leg offside is offside an arm cannot be offside.
Basically you cannot be offside with hands or arms as football is not played with hands or arms... So strickly speaking your head could be offside.


Though NOT law.. Fifa guidance to officials is to give the benefit of doubt to the striker.

As well as the offside law as we know it... The most recent changes were that to be offside you have to be......

1 Active by playing the ball.
2 Have gained an advantage from being in an offside position eg shot fired from 30 yards... Ball rebounds off a post or goalkeeper spills ball to a player (who plays the ball) who was offside at the time the shot was taken.
3 player in an offside position interferes with an opponents eg standing in the line of sight of the keeper)

All Free Kicks are indirect so youll see the referee raise one arm to indicate that as the kick iz taken and keep it raised until either its been touched by anoher player or gone out of play.

Rick_Muller wrote:I may be wrong, but any part of the body that can play the ball, hence excluding arms but not legs or head.

That explains why John Gayle was always 12 inches offside..

On the last 2/3 occasions same has come on as sub, he hasn't looked quite as interested imo, yesterday he obviously looked sharp again and hungry, I'm curious to what the significance is, obviously it's been mentioned he'll be moved on in the summer, just maybe sd has had a word and assured him he's still a big part of the plans, and that he's going nowhere. I for one hope so, as has already been said there's only one.

alwaysaclaret wrote:On the last 2/3 occasions same has come on as sub, he hasn't looked quite as interested imo

What leads you to that conclusion? Do you have expertise in reading body language?
Personally I don't find it credible that, whether he's starting or coming on as sub, he would be lacking interest.

Frenchclaret wrote:It also shows our number 9 being pushed from behind into their number 6. It would not have been disallowed!

Bonjour Frenchclaret. Je suis aussi un "claret français". Enchanté!
You're right I didn't clock their defender with his hands on Chris Wood. On seeing another replay I take back my previous comment!