Ref Watch Play-off Refwatch ......... Rochdale (A)

[Blues ‘n’ twos]

Was there contact from the guy that 'flicked on' - from the replays I've seen not obvious to me there was (I'm not saying there was or wasn't, I can't tell) - and then Kelman would be onside.

Definitely made contact!

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

Definitely made contact!

If anything the contact may have been from the defender if there was any?

 

[londonblue]

If anything the contact may have been from the defender if there was any?

It sounds like the issue isn't where Kelman was standing and more an issue of whether there was a flick on.

Maybe the decision was more marginal than has been said.

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

It really sounds like you're victim blaming. However bad it was, it's still a mistake. Nobody has the right to abuse them.

I've already agreed that it is not right to abuse officials, despite the typo, but you are being as pedantic as usual!

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

Was there contact from the guy that 'flicked on' - from the replays I've seen not obvious to me there was (I'm not saying there was or wasn't, I can't tell) - and then Kelman would be onside.

It obviously would have been a legitimate goal if there had been contact, but there wasn't. That is the only reason I can see that it was given, that the assistant on that side thought so.

There clearly wasn't though, it was interesting to see the Stockport manager making that exact point at half time at the doorway of the ref's changing room.

Just another reason that I'm hoping Stockport win the second leg and go through, unless of course Orient beat them by a two goal margin, which would remove that incident costing Stockport a final place.

 

[londonblue]

I've already agreed that it is not right to abuse officials, despite the typo, but you are being as pedantic as usual!

Not pedantic, just missed your point. My mistake.

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

It obviously would have been a legitimate goal if there had been contact, but there wasn't. That is the only reason I can see that it was given, that the assistant on that side thought so.

There clearly wasn't though, it was interesting to see the Stockport manager making that exact point at half time at the doorway of the ref's changing room.

Just another reason that I'm hoping Stockport win the second leg and go through, unless of course Orient beat them by a two goal margin, which would remove that incident costing Stockport a final place.

I’m confused? You are saying it would have been a legitimate goal if there was contact? If there was contact Kelman would of been 5 yards offside when the contact was made?

He wasn’t off side when the original ball was played into the area, but would have been if there was a flick on from the Orient player with his head?

If you are saying you think there clearly wasn’t any contact then it’s the correct decision isn’t it?

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

Not pedantic, just missed your point. My mistake.

In that case l apologise for my previous comment unreservedly.

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

When the original ball was played the camera didn't pick him up the issue came as he had advanced a huge distance beyond the defensive line and his player then flicked the ball on, over the head of the defender, who was trying to clear the ball on the original line of flight before the flick on from The O's player, which took the ball over his head, with Kelman about 2-3 yards beyond them.

I was agreeing with the post that said if the Stockport defender had flicked the ball on, Kelman would have been onside as the defender would have made the goal legitimate.

However, since that wasn't the case, l totally understand why the Stockport side and management were so aggrieved. Up to and including the half time heated discussion that was going on by the referees changing room.

I hope that clarifies?

 

[Somerset Ex-TTB]

When the original ball was played the camera didn't pick him up the issue came as he had advanced a huge distance beyond the defensive line and his player then flicked the ball on, over the head of the defender, who was trying to clear the ball on the original line of flight before the flick on from The O's player, which took the ball over his head, with Kelman about 2-3 yards beyond them.

I was agreeing with the post that said if the Stockport defender had flicked the ball on, Kelman would have been onside as the defender would have made the goal legitimate.

However, since that wasn't the case, l totally understand why the Stockport side and management were so aggrieved. Up to and including the half time heated discussion that was going on by the referees changing room.

I hope that clarifies?

Yep, no touch or touch from defender, legitimate goal, he was onside when the original ball was played, you can see him on the edge of the box. Touch from orient player 5 yards offside.

Impossible to tell, even with VAR if, who or anyone got a flick on.

 

[ColinMorrisWalksOnWater]

Yep, no touch or touch from defender, legitimate goal, he was onside when the original ball was played, you can see him on the edge of the box. Touch from orient player 5 yards offside.

Impossible to tell, even with VAR if, who or anyone got a flick on.

Whether it should or shouldn't have counted, a great example of the debates VAR is robbing premier league fans of lol.

 

[Blues ‘n’ twos]

Yep, no touch or touch from defender, legitimate goal, he was onside when the original ball was played, you can see him on the edge of the box. Touch from orient player 5 yards offside.

Impossible to tell, even with VAR if, who or anyone got a flick on.

If you have the Sky sports app, watch their video of the incident, the slow motion video clearly shows a flick on from an Orient player, offside by yards!

 

[londonblue]

If you have the Sky sports app, watch their video of the incident, the slow motion video clearly shows a flick on from an Orient player, offside by yards!

Unfortunately officials don't have slow motion replays to show it to them clearly.

 

[PIERS]

most Linos would give that as offside if they had half a doubt who had flicked it on.

 

[Mick]

most Linos would give that as offside if they had half a doubt who had flicked it on.

Most Assistants should be talking to the referee over the communications and telling him it's not offside unless the attacking team flicked it on in which case it is.

 

[PIERS]

which it was