Quote from: paul_e on January 26, 2021, 08:14:15 PMQuote from: The Edge on January 26, 2021, 08:09:16 PMQuote from: London Villan on January 26, 2021, 06:17:06 PMDon’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with. Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).We would have gone downWith the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25
Quote from: The Edge on January 26, 2021, 08:09:16 PMQuote from: London Villan on January 26, 2021, 06:17:06 PMDon’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with. Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).
Quote from: London Villan on January 26, 2021, 06:17:06 PMDon’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with.
Don’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.
Quote from: Clive W on January 26, 2021, 08:17:40 PMQuote from: paul_e on January 26, 2021, 08:14:15 PMQuote from: The Edge on January 26, 2021, 08:09:16 PMQuote from: London Villan on January 26, 2021, 06:17:06 PMDon’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with. Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).We would have gone downWith the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25 shit, yes we would sorry, I had the respective goal differences the wrong way round in my head.
Quote from: paul_e on January 26, 2021, 08:45:31 PMQuote from: Clive W on January 26, 2021, 08:17:40 PMQuote from: paul_e on January 26, 2021, 08:14:15 PMQuote from: The Edge on January 26, 2021, 08:09:16 PMQuote from: London Villan on January 26, 2021, 06:17:06 PMDon’t let the fact that even without that point we’d have stayed up in goals scored... some idiots out there.Is this correct? Please tell me it is. I'm sick of arguing with plebs on social media about this. That would be a great weapon to bash them with. Yep, we'd have had the same points and goal difference as Bournemouth but having scored 1 more goal (on the basis that that was the only goal in the game and every other result went unchanged).We would have gone downWith the Sheffield Utd goal against us we would have had a gd of -27 while Bournemouth had -25 shit, yes we would sorry, I had the respective goal differences the wrong way round in my head.Idiot number 1 here - teach me to look at football tables while on a Zoom call
Quote from: aj2k77 on January 26, 2021, 03:58:32 PMQuote from: andyh on January 26, 2021, 01:55:18 PMSurprise, surprise.They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.Precisely, there is no change to the the law, nor any change to the correct interpretation, they just referred to the wrong bit of the law to try and excuse the cock up. BBC are still claiming the decision was right according to the letter of the law "at the time". Which is utter bollocks, the bit about a challenge being deemed as interfering with the opponent playing the ball was always there, and it was always offside. I bet there still won't be any sanctions against Jon Toss.
Quote from: andyh on January 26, 2021, 01:55:18 PMSurprise, surprise.They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.
Surprise, surprise.They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.
Quote from: ktvillan on January 26, 2021, 06:25:11 PMQuote from: aj2k77 on January 26, 2021, 03:58:32 PMQuote from: andyh on January 26, 2021, 01:55:18 PMSurprise, surprise.They have instructed referees to interpret the offside rule now which means Rodri would have been offside.That's what the rule was anyway. They've basically backtracked on trying to make up an excuse for an enormously shit VAR decision made by a muppet.Precisely, there is no change to the the law, nor any change to the correct interpretation, they just referred to the wrong bit of the law to try and excuse the cock up. BBC are still claiming the decision was right according to the letter of the law "at the time". Which is utter bollocks, the bit about a challenge being deemed as interfering with the opponent playing the ball was always there, and it was always offside. I bet there still won't be any sanctions against Jon Toss.Correct. The law hasn’t changed, the officials and pundits got the interpretation wrong. The second Rhodri moved towards the ball he was offside. Clearly gaining an advantage from being in an offside position. Simple.
The correct response to anyone who says we only stayed up because of Hawkeye failure is kevin friend.