2nd Goal

[atlantalad]

Extremely pathetic and naive defending at best. I recall when my sons played at under 6,7,8 and 9's their football coaches would always tell the team to play to the referees whistle (i.e as per high pitch sound eminating from that thing the ref puts in his mouth and blows through). Jes-us I thought at professional level players should not have to be reminded of that.

[Shore claret]

Been interesting to see devil's advocate take on the goal now, be like a politician spinning at their best.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

Extremely pathetic and naive defending at best. I recall when my sons played at under 6,7,8 and 9's their football coaches would always tell the team to play to the referees whistle (i.e as per high pitch sound eminating from that thing the ref puts in his mouth and blows through). Jes-us I thought at professional level players should not have to be reminded of that.

What if,let's say, that Moss does make a noise with the whistle (Which some Burnley players are claiming)? Not a full blown whistle,but a definite parp (He definitely puts the whistle to his mouth), that would explain why virtually the entire defensive unit stopped.

[nil_desperandum]

And if he really has told Joe Hart that he's switched off, that's absolutely ridiculous..

Maybe like our players he thought that Moss had blown the whistle?

[Hipper]

Both Gudmundsson and later Hart realised the danger of Silva and started moving towards him. That seems to me like they at least did not hear a whistle.

I've just seen the half hour highlights on Sky. From that I see the following:

1. Cork puts his arms out to perhaps pull Sane back but doesn't succeed. Sane reacts as if he is pulled back and goes down. Moss by his actions says it's not a penalty. Burnley players all appeal for either no penalty or a free kick for diving. There is a case for the latter but as Cork initiated the contact I think Moss got that decision right.

2. When Sane touches the ball, Silva is in an offside position (a player off the pitch is considered on the touchline for offside purposes). Therefore as soon as Silva touches the ball he should be penalised for being offside. I don't see why it could not be offside. It doesn't matter that Sane didn't intend to pass the ball to Silva - it was enough that he touched it forward.

3. Sky showed a view down the touchline. The ball was clearly out of play when Silva hit it.

The Burnley defence committed a schoolboy error in not playing to the whistle. That was just plain dumb.

[claretspice]

Clearly having watched it back, I was a bit kind to the officials there. The ball is definitely out, and whilst that might be a tough one for the linesman (although if he's concentrating, given the ball is moving slowly by then, he ought to get it right regardless of the posts being in the way), the offside call is not difficult at all. It's clearly offside, and it ought to have been given, and in fairness its arguably so obvious that that is presumably part of the confusion of the Burnley players. It's also not as much of a penalty as I originally thought (its as much a penalty as Vokes away at Cardiff 3 weeks ago - similar amount of contact, the difference being one player tried to play on, and one hurled himself to earth).

But for all that, if one of 5 Burnley outfield players stays switched on (Cork, Tarks, Mee, Lowton, plus Taylor who can make the offside call a lot easier, and you can possibly add Lennon to that list who has time to get goal side of Silva), or Hart doesn't react in the worst way possible and leave himself marooned in no-mans land, then the officials' errors are of no consequence. It doesn't make it right, but the ultimate cause of the goal is our defending.

[Devils_Advocate]

Been interesting to see devil's advocate take on the goal now, be like a politician spinning at their best.

Im not getting bogged down in arguing with multiple posters on here but happy to give my view and leave people to agree or disagree

First it looked like Sane got his arm pulled as he went to swing is kick at it so I thought Pen. However im not sure cos with everything else that went on they didnt really give a close up view and analysis. I definitely dont think Sane should have been penalised for a dive by either a foul or caution

If its not a pen then ive no issue with the ref having the whistle in his mouth as most refs do this and our players shouldnt be stood staring at the ref but getting on with the game. I suspect the reason our players near the incident froze and looked to the ref is because they thought it was a pen and expected a whistle

Did the ball go out im syill not sure. It is so close and depends on if a bit of the ball overhangs the line and would need an angle from either directly above or dead in line. The angles dont show this and the fact the bottom of the ball isnt touching the line leads people to say it is out. This is why goal line technology was brought in and why its been so successful cos without all the cameras you just cannot be 100%

Whether the ball went out though becomes irrelevant as the replays showed the City player to be clearly offside. He was off the pitch so deemed to be on the byline. Now what we couldnt see in the original footage was there was a Burnley player off the pitch so even though the city player was further off the pitch they are deemed as being level and therefore the city player is considered onside with respect to him. The big thing is you need to have two players goal side as one is normally a goalkeeper and as Hart was on the pitch then it is clearly offside. This was the area yesterday I said yesterday I thought would show up as being incorrect

In summary then probably a Pen but not seen enough of it to say for certain, not a Sane dive or booking, uncertain if the ball was out of play but without doubt once the ref decides its not a pen it is 100% offside

[Carport]

For what’s its worth, I agree with all of that DA.

[Wile E Coyote]

if we were beaten 1-0 and that was the goal that did it, then fair enough, but come on !! 5-0

[Spike]

It is as bad a decision as I've seen from an assistant all season because it really isn't close. And if he really has told Joe Hart that he's switched off, that's absolutely ridiculous. And in any case, the game should have been stopped for the dive.

Too awful from the officials to be soo many mistakes. Moss wasn’t even facing goal as ball hit the net! Just totally dodgy

[claretspice]

if we were beaten 1-0 and that was the goal that did it, then fair enough, but come on !! 5-0

We were in the game at 1-0 though (see for example Spurs away last season), and in truth the 15 minutes of play before the second goal had generally seen us be competitive. The truth is that the second goal knocked the stuffing out of us and certainly altered the pattern of the second half dramatically. It was clearly a significant moment in the game.

[Wile E Coyote]

We were in the game at 1-0 though (see for example Spurs away last season), and in truth the 15 minutes of play before the second goal had generally seen us be competitive. The truth is that the second goal knocked the stuffing out of us and certainly altered the pattern of the second half dramatically. It was clearly a significant moment in the game.

can't agree with that, I predicted a win for us, but 5-0 is a right hammering , i accept it it may have rattled us , but that can't justify scoreline.

[nil_desperandum]

can't agree with that, I predicted a win for us, but 5-0 is a right hammering , i accept it it may have rattled us , but that can't justify scoreline.

So if we had played 90 minutes against 10 men (Company on Lennon), and 30 minutes against 9 (Sane on Lowton), and that goal hadn't stood, do you think we would have lost heavily?
Moss played a major role in the outcome of this match.

[claretspice]

can't agree with that, I predicted a win for us, but 5-0 is a right hammering , i accept it it may have rattled us , but that can't justify scoreline.

I completely agree that we didn't react well enough to the set-back and adversity of the second goal, but that's not incompatible with saying that without that stroke of enormous bad luck, the game might have panned out differently.

[claretspice]

can't agree with that, I predicted a win for us, but 5-0 is a right hammering , i accept it it may have rattled us , but that can't justify scoreline.

I completely agree that we didn't react well enough to the set-back and adversity of the second goal, but that's not incompatible with saying that without that stroke of enormous bad luck, the game might have panned out differently.

[Silkyskills1]

If memory serves me right didn't City score a winning goal at Turf Moor a few seasons back in similar circumstances. Trying hard to recall the exact details but it was down at the Cricket Field End and we hesitated over something we shouldn't have and they pulled the ball back from the bye-line for an easy tap-in. Sure there's got to be someone with a better memory than me.

[Wile E Coyote]

I completely agree that we didn't react well enough to the set-back and adversity of the second goal, but that's not incompatible with saying that without that stroke of enormous bad luck, the game might have panned out differently.

yeah, it could've been 7-0

[Shore claret]

I'm not saying it would change the result, but 2 very big decisions were at 0-0 and 1-0 what manager would not be massively peeved.

[2 Bee Holed]

Whether the ball went out though becomes irrelevant as the replays showed the City player to be clearly offside. He was off the pitch so deemed to be on the byline. Now what we couldnt see in the original footage was there was a Burnley player off the pitch so even though the city player was further off the pitch they are deemed as being level and therefore the city player is considered onside with respect to him. The big thing is you need to have two players goal side as one is normally a goalkeeper and as Hart was on the pitch then it is clearly offside. This was the area yesterday I said yesterday I thought would show up as being incorrect

Screenshot (59).png (840.5 KiB) Viewed 1849 times

I cannot see a Burnley player off the pitch at this point DA.
This is the point at which Sane nudges the ball forward, the city player is on the line.
Tarkowski has made it back onto the pitch as you can see, and by some distance!
I wasn't at the game, but where was the lineman? Can those at the game tell me?

I suspect/hope he/she was by the corner flag?

However, I suspect the linesman wasn't at the game either! Surely the Ref could see it?

[Devils_Advocate]

Screenshot (59).png

I cannot see a Burnley player off the pitch at this point DA.
This is the point at which Sane nudges the ball forward, the city player is on the line.
Tarkowski has made it back onto the pitch as you can see, and by some distance!
I wasn't at the game, but where was the lineman? Can those at the game tell me?

I suspect/hope he/she was by the corner flag?

However, I suspect the linesman wasn't at the game either! Surely the Ref could see it?

Going off the match of the day replay I dont think Sane touches it here because he us pulled back and fouled. When he takes his first touch that sends the ball towards the byline Tarks was off the pitch.

[Hibsclaret]

There is no question that the goal is offside irrespective of what else happened.

Kamara suggested it should have been a pen having slowed the images down. With VAR knowing the clowns using it they may have given a pen and Cork could have walked with a second yellow even.

All ifs and buts but the 2nd goal debatable or not clearly changed the score and possibly even the outcome. We have every reason to be peeved that the playing field is not always level (certainly against Arsenal or City).

When was the last time something controversial went in our favour (possibly a couple of Vokesey handballs last season)?

[taio]

Going off the match of the day replay I dont think Sane touches it here because he us pulled back and fouled. When he takes his first touch that sends the ball towards the byline Tarks was off the pitch.

Why is Tarkowski's position relevant?

[Devils_Advocate]

It isnt and if you look at my post on it I was just giving my full summary of the event (as asked) and actually stated that it doesnt matter because Hart is on the pitch.

Above im just answering the question posed to me. Im not gonna bother being polite and engaging people if it just becomes but what about, but what about, but what about from multiple posters as it becomes tiresome for everyone like it did yesterday

[dsr]

When was the last time something controversial went in our favour (possibly a couple of Vokesey handballs last season)?

We know what constitutes a penalty from watching Burnley the last 50-odd matches. To be a penalty, it has to be a very severe pull of the shirt or a blatant trip - just snagging the shirt or pulling a man's arm, even putting your arms round him, is not a penalty; tapping ankles or catching the man's legs is not enough to be a penalty.

Of course, we also know what constitutes a penalty from watching the opposition for the last fifty-odd games. Any sort of contact in the box can be a penalty, however caused. It's at the referee's discretion.

[2 Bee Holed]

Why is Tarkowski's position relevant?

Because at one point Tarkowski and the City player were both off the pitch and therefore deemed to be on the by-line.
The point is that at the moment Sane nudges it forward only the City player is off the pitch. Hence he is offside because there are not 2 Burnley players between the city player and the goal line.(In fact if you look at this image there are none!) Well that is the law for teams outside the top 6!

Here is another go at capturing the forward pass/nudge by Sane.

Screenshot (60).png (829.82 KiB) Viewed 1782 times

[taio]

Because at one point Tarkowski and the City player were both off the pitch and therefore deemed to be on the by-line.
The point is that at the moment Sane nudges it forward only the City player is off the pitch. Hence he is offside because there are not 2 Burnley players between the city player and the goal line.(In fact if you look at this image there are none!) Well that is the law for teams outside the top 6!

Here is another go at capturing the forward pass/nudge by Sane.

Screenshot (60).png

Yes I know, I was replying to DA.

[Vegas Claret]

fairly conclusive

[nil_desperandum]

Because at one point Tarkowski and the City player were both off the pitch and therefore deemed to be on the by-line.
The point is that at the moment ]

Yes, but as Taio implies Tarkowski's position is irrelevant because all the other 10 Burnley players are on the field of play.

[2 Bee Holed]

Yes, but as Taio implies Tarkowski's position is irrelevant because all the other 10 Burnley players are on the field of play.

Can you please explain slowly and clearly why Tarks position is irrelevant?
Surely if Tarks is off the pitch that makes the City player onside?
i.e. both Tarks and Hart between city player and goal line.

I am not being awkward, just genuinely thick!

[jtv]

Can you please explain slowly and clearly why Tarks position is irrelevant?
Surely if Tarks is off the pitch that makes the City player onside?
i.e. both Tarks and Hart between city player and goal line.

I am not being awkward, just genuinely thick!

Hart is not even on the goal line. He is further forward than the city player.