Must read on 'the incident.'

[MG]

Oxblogger has given us a superb forensic assessment of the final minute of play in the Bradford game. Permit me to highlight one especially wonderful passage:

Curiously, according to the rules, the ball isn’t ‘in-play’ until it leaves the box. So, from the moment Simon Eastwood touches it to the moment it leaves the box, the ball is in an existential crisis, stuck somewhere between being a football and not being a football.

For the full read:

The wrap: Oxford United 1 Bradford City 0

Let’s get to it. It’s 0-0 in a relegation six-pointer, we’ve been the better team, just not good enough to beat them. The board goes up, four minutes of injury time. Some people h…

oxblogger.co.uk

 

[outsidethebox]

Very well put and thought through!

 

[AbbeyOx]

haha that's a good read

 

[UTM]

Oxblogger has given us a superb forensic assessment of the final minute of play in the Bradford game. Permit me to highlight one especially wonderful passage:

Curiously, according to the rules, the ball isn’t ‘in-play’ until it leaves the box. So, from the moment Simon Eastwood touches it to the moment it leaves the box, the ball is in an existential crisis, stuck somewhere between being a football and not being a football.

For the full read:

The wrap: Oxford United 1 Bradford City 0

Let’s get to it. It’s 0-0 in a relegation six-pointer, we’ve been the better team, just not good enough to beat them. The board goes up, four minutes of injury time. Some people h…

oxblogger.co.uk

Total great read , and well put on all.

 

[West Oxon U’s]

I am glad the piece did justice to Ruffels 60 yard diag. to Whyte with seconds remaining - it was a glorious pass from Ruffs.

 

[Shosho]

That Mackie sprinted from the half way line to get in the box

 

[Manorlounger]

Oxblogger has given us a superb forensic assessment of the final minute of play in the Bradford game. Permit me to highlight one especially wonderful passage:

Curiously, according to the rules, the ball isn’t ‘in-play’ until it leaves the box. So, from the moment Simon Eastwood touches it to the moment it leaves the box, the ball is in an existential crisis, stuck somewhere between being a football and not being a football.

For the full read:

The wrap: Oxford United 1 Bradford City 0

Let’s get to it. It’s 0-0 in a relegation six-pointer, we’ve been the better team, just not good enough to beat them. The board goes up, four minutes of injury time. Some people h…

oxblogger.co.uk

The best explanation that I have come across so far. Very well written and quite clear in the detail.

Underlying outcome is that the officials made a right hash of sorting things out and could very well have been found guilty of contributing to events which would have brought the game into disrepute.
I would hope that the official report highlights this and the indecision and confusion of those who are charged with preventing just that.

 

[Marked Ox]

The best explanation that I have come across so far. Very well written and quite clear in the detail.

Underlying outcome is that the officials made a right hash of sorting things out and could very well have been found guilty of contributing to events which would have brought the game into disrepute.
I would hope that the official report highlights this and the indecision and confusion of those who are charged with preventing just that.

- There is a good reasoned analysis by a Bradford City supporting Referee (1976Bantam) on the Bradford forum (p24 iirc) who takes apart his own original view over 2 posts:

Post 1)

"Whilst it ultimately doesn’t matter, I may be changing my mind on the legality of the Oxford goal kick and what happened afterwards.

The relevant part of the laws (law 16) dictates a retake if opponents in the area try to play the ball/challenge an opponent. Whilst the law states procedurally that opponents should not be in the area, reading it I don’t think it demands a retake for that alone unless you interpret the ‘any other offence means retake’ comment in the laws as including the above.

The other point was whether the ball left the area before the Oxford player touched it (which definitely would be a retake). TV didn’t capture it so down to the City fans who were there to confirm.

If the ball left the area before the Oxford player touched it, then whilst the officials made a right old mess of the situation they may actually have got the decision right ultimately.

Apparently it was the assistant nearest our fans who drew the ref’s attention to something potentially being amiss but for some reason didn’t flag as soon as he spotted what he thought was the infringement - which would be standard protocol i.e. ref hasn’t seen something so bring his attention to it.

Doesn’t change the fact we were worse than awful and deserved to lose, but potentially not due to the refereeing error we thought it was."

Post 2)

"Annoying that pro/former pro refs can’t agree on something that isn’t subjective. I’m a ref myself and knew the part of the law about all opponents out of the area and was also aware of the part about it being an offence for an opponent in the area trying to play the ball - but hadn’t twigged that the former isn’t apparently an offence in itself.

This morning I got pointed by a fellow ref to a part of law 13 on free kicks:

If, when a free kick is taken quickly by the defending team from inside its penalty area, any opponents are inside the penalty area because they did not have time to leave, the referee allows play to continue. If an opponent who is in the penalty area when the free kick is taken, or enters the penalty area before the ball is in play, touches or challenges for the ball before it has touched another player, the free kick is retaken

Which could be inferred to equally apply to goal kicks given the situation described is exactly the same - and is probably why IFAB are changing the law on goal kicks from next season to essentially align to the wording above (plus, defenders will be allowed to touch the ball before it leaves the area).

I still don’t understand though the process the officials went through to get to what was ultimately the right decision IF this was all to do with goal kick procedure, as that’s ridiculous.

If it was actually down to this suggestion of a penalty on LOB, for an assistant in the pro game to not apparently know that it can’t be brought back for that after the restart (the goal kick) is equally poor and through inaction at the time of the challenge has directly led to an alternative outcome i.e. Oxford goal rather than City penalty (accepting our subsequent defending of the attack was rubbish)."


- Although my favourite rant comment, from what I've seen, comes from Onside who has completely ignored the sensible, reasoned argument above which is on the same page:

"WHY? I have seen many games both at VP and Away, and on TV where the team that was awful have taken the points!! Yes by all accounts we were poor, but we have had rough justice yet again! How many points have we been denied this season by exceptionally poor decisions by the ref? If we add them all up we could have been out if the relegation. Please don’t tell me it evens itself out over the course of the season because it absolutely does not! Oxford won that yesterday not because the were fabulous, in fact they were poor as well, but because they were prepared to harangue the poor weak referee."

He obviously missed them haranguing the Ref as soon as we scored or them surrounding and haranguing the 2nd Linesman, including their management team when the Ref went to talk to him or his team refusing to kick off after the goal was given.

 

[moomooland]

Absolutely correct. The referee gave a goal kick. It was taken and there was no flag from the linesman to indicate the ball hadn't gone out of the penalty box and play continued.
How someone can then go back over what had happened and change a descision is beyond me.
The referee created controversy by his indesicion but then went back to his original take on it.
If the linesman had thought there was an infringement, he should have flagged at the time, not change his mind a minute later.

All the carry on after the Mackie goal was just a nonsense.

 

[Manorlounger]

- Although my favourite rant comment, from what I've seen, comes from Onside who has completely ignored the sensible, reasoned argument above which is on the same page:

"WHY? I have seen many games both at VP and Away, and on TV where the team that was awful have taken the points!! Yes by all accounts we were poor, but we have had rough justice yet again! How many points have we been denied this season by exceptionally poor decisions by the ref? If we add them all up we could have been out if the relegation. Please don’t tell me it evens itself out over the course of the season because it absolutely does not! Oxford won that yesterday not because the were fabulous, in fact they were poor as well, but because they were prepared to harangue the poor weak referee."

He obviously missed them haranguing the Ref as soon as we scored or them surrounding and haranguing the 2nd Linesman, including their management team when the Ref went to talk to him or his team refusing to kick off after the goal was given.

Sour grapes from a very misguided and (ok, with good reason) partisan spectator?
Some very unsavoury and bullish tactics being exhibited by both sides but certainly more vigorous from the Bradford representatives.

I did find it amusing that KR decided to make himself look better by acting as peacemaker and protecting the officials!

 

[Scotchegg]

I thought Robinson handled himself and the players pretty well considering the circumstances. It helped that the decision finally went his way but he could have lost it and made a shitty situation much worse.

 

[Berliner]

Bradford down and out, waiting to kick off. Oxford players also lined up. If there was any shenanigans or the ref was unsure then this was the time to give the other linesman a wave and tell him to come over before being surrounded by loads of players while traipsing about giving decisions that he then revoked.

Right decision, astoundingly poor match/incident management.

 

[Fred]

I can understand why the ref wasn't willing to explain what had happened because he knew he had made a bad mistake. If he'd came out and admitted it, would it have helped him?
As it is most neutrals assume it depends which side you support.

 

[Fred]

I seriously dread to think what would have happened if referee had not awarded our goal. The first linesman was not flagging when he should have, although he could have been via radio? The second linesmen must have told referee it was too late to back track.

 

[Didcotox]

SSN do a ref watch on a Monday morning. Would hope this would be discussed.

 

[DreamInYellow]

I think the referees 'moment of madness' in reverting back a moment in play which had passed has to come subconsciously from watching VAR games. I might be being too kind, but I feel sure this is what we saw played out.

It's very odd tomhave different rules for the same game as we are all watching and digesting how it is being played with VAR.

Do away with it, please. You win some, you loose some.

 

[Paul Cannell]

I thought Robinson handled himself and the players pretty well considering the circumstances.

No shit?

 

[Fred]

I think the referees 'moment of madness' in reverting back a moment in play which had passed has to come subconsciously from watching VAR games. I might be being too kind, but I feel sure this is what we saw played out.

It's very odd tomhave different rules for the same game as we are all watching and digesting how it is being played with VAR.

Do away with it, please. You win some, you loose some.

On VAR I wonder how long a review can take?
Could they have backtracked and given a penalty just after we scored?

 

[Yellow River]

I think the referees 'moment of madness' in reverting back a moment in play which had passed has to come subconsciously from watching VAR games. I might be being too kind, but I feel sure this is what we saw played out.

It's very odd tomhave different rules for the same game as we are all watching and digesting how it is being played with VAR.

Do away with it, please. You win some, you loose some.

That’s actually a really good point re the gradual infiltration of VAR into the subconscious thinking of officials, managers and players alike.

The officials on Saturday in particular the referee and Northstand assistant have given a clear view of what VAR could and probably would be like for lower league football if it ever became part of the game.

A game that comes devoid of its instant euphoric high, a passionless, sterile, joyless corporate TV driven product which doesn’t give a s**t about supporters who actually attend matches.

 

[Paul Cannell]

That's exceedingly well put, sir.