A&H

Liv Villa - Mings VAR

GraemeS said:
Where in the law is this "completely controlled play" requirement you've just introduced? I've been flicking through the app (the official source of law since they stopped printing books) for the last 10 minutes and I can't find anything of the sort.

The law use the expression "deliberately plays" the ball - which is clearly what happened here. And regardless, even if we do accept these guidelines, I still maintain this doesn't go near C&O and getting the VAR involved.
Click to expand...
You won’t see it as they sent this information out in Dec/Jan to clear up their definition of deliberate play. I’d imagine they will put it into next seasons LOTG for reference

The images I put were from the PGMOL, who obviously got this from IFAB. Someone else has also put the info here direct from IFAB as well

The bit I put about completely controlled play is what I have found to be the simplest way to think of it (and has also been sent down to me from FL colleagues)
 
A&H International
So not to be disrespectful, but we're not really debating law then are we? We're debating the way you have chosen to interpret something you've been told, which to me seems to directly contradict the actual source of law we're all given.

There's a clear hierarchy of information here and the LOTG sits at the top of it. Guidelines, clarifications, FAQ's, IFAB social media, coaching etc all have a place, but not when they directly contradict the most primary source. And "imagining it will be in next seasons LOTG" is similarly a lovely bit of context, but entirely irrelevant for a game played under 2022/23 LOTG.
 
GraemeS said:
So not to be disrespectful, but we're not really debating law then are we? We're debating the way you have chosen to interpret something you've been told, which to me seems to directly contradict the actual source of law we're all given.

There's a clear hierarchy of information here and the LOTG sits at the top of it. Guidelines, clarifications, FAQ's, IFAB social media, coaching etc all have a place, but not when they directly contradict the most primary source. And "imagining it will be in next seasons LOTG" is similarly a lovely bit of context, but entirely irrelevant for a game played under 2022/23 LOTG.
Click to expand...
The bit I have put is to try and simplify the guidance that has been given out by IFAB. This is information that has been sent on to me by more senior colleagues. The LOTG state that it cannot be offside if it is deliberately played by the defending player, I have sent the guidance on how to decide if it is a deliberate play.

If you do not agree, that is entirely up to you. But if you make it to L4 and beyond, you will be expected to follow this guidance (along with any other guidance that is sent out by PGMOL/IFAB). If you choose to ignore that guidance, you aren’t going to last too long on the contrib or supply lists
 
I might have misunderstood, but the offside deliberate play clarification came out before last season in July.
It was too late to be added to the 22/23 laws but absolutely wholly relevant as to how Deliberate play Vs deflection should be interpreted for 22/23.
And there is no imagining it, it's definitely going to be enshrined in the law book 23/24
 
JamesL said:
I might have misunderstood, but the offside deliberate play clarification came out before last season in July.
It was too late to be added to the 22/23 laws but absolutely wholly relevant as to how Deliberate play Vs deflection should be interpreted for 22/23.
And there is no imagining it, it's definitely going to be enshrined in the law book 23/24
Click to expand...
Aye you may well be correct there. When I had a look through my emails, the info from PGMOL came in Jan

But there could well have been something sent before that

Either way, agreed that it’s relevant for the matter
 
But that's not a functional system! I've been a referee for nearly 10 years and have never received an email from PGMOL.

So which email am I supposed to be referring to when making my on-field decisions?
How do I verify the authenticity of any emails I get containing "law changes"?
If I were to do a LOTG test on this tomorrow, would the correct answer be the one based on the LOTG app or the one based on an email sent to some (but clearly not all) referees in January?
There are multiple posts on here where the FAQ answers put out by IFAB's social media are mocked and rejected - how am I supposed to know that some IFAB sources (emails) are a valid source of info but some others (twitter) aren't?

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I don't understand how an answer based on the LOTG can possibly be wrong because some forum members say they were sent an email that said otherwise? The lawbook is the primary source, any contradiction between secondary sources should be solved by referring to the primary source.
 
I have finally watched the moment and still can't understand why the goal was offside. Every action by a player if it hits their legs is genernally intentional if they moved their leg towards the ball? Surely they were trying to clear it but got it wrong so the intention is there but they weren't proficient enough to go through with the action.

We may as well say every foul from a tackle shouldn't be a foul as their intention was to hit the ball but they missed?
 
GraemeS said:
But that's not a functional system! I've been a referee for nearly 10 years and have never received an email from PGMOL.

So which email am I supposed to be referring to when making my on-field decisions?
How do I verify the authenticity of any emails I get containing "law changes"?
If I were to do a LOTG test on this tomorrow, would the correct answer be the one based on the LOTG app or the one based on an email sent to some (but clearly not all) referees in January?
There are multiple posts on here where the FAQ answers put out by IFAB's social media are mocked and rejected - how am I supposed to know that some IFAB sources (emails) are a valid source of info but some others (twitter) aren't?

I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse here, but I don't understand how an answer based on the LOTG can possibly be wrong because some forum members say they were sent an email that said otherwise? The lawbook is the primary source, any contradiction between secondary sources should be solved by referring to the primary source.
Click to expand...
I agree with you that the information should be more widely shared/communicated/advertised, but I suppose their response would be that the guidance is available via the IFAB website, so therefore open to everyone.

If you were to do an exam that was created in the last few months, I'd expect that you would need to follow this guidance. The guidance doesn't go against the LOTG, it is merely there to clear up what deliberate pay actually means. Whilst the LOTG are the primary source, IFAB create and amend this. If they make an amendment on their website, I'd take this as gospel......
 
Kinsleyr said:
I have finally watched the moment and still can't understand why the goal was offside. Every action by a player if it hits their legs is genernally intentional if they moved their leg towards the ball? Surely they were trying to clear it but got it wrong so the intention is there but they weren't proficient enough to go through with the action.

We may as well say every foul from a tackle shouldn't be a foul as their intention was to hit the ball but they missed?
Click to expand...
That bottom analogy doesn't really work as you don't need to intend to foul someone for it to be a foul.
 
Runner-Ref said:
I agree with you that the information should be more widely shared/communicated/advertised, but I suppose their response would be that the guidance is available via the IFAB website, so therefore open to everyone.

If you were to do an exam that was created in the last few months, I'd expect that you would need to follow this guidance. The guidance doesn't go against the LOTG, it is merely there to clear up what deliberate pay actually means. Whilst the LOTG are the primary source, IFAB create and amend this. If they make an amendment on their website, I'd take this as gospel......
Click to expand...
I've seen the claim that this is just "clarification" rather than rewriting the law. Fortunately, I wasn't born yesterday and am able to read both the law and the guidelines and see the clear contradiction.

Our discussion regarding this exact incident clearly explains why this is a de facto law change. Even you haven't disputed my reading of the law in the LOTG, only said that I should be using a different definition which gives a different outcome. If that's not a change in the laws, I don't know what is!
 
GraemeS said:
I've seen the claim that this is just "clarification" rather than rewriting the law. Fortunately, I wasn't born yesterday and am able to read both the law and the guidelines and see the clear contradiction.

Our discussion regarding this exact incident clearly explains why this is a de facto law change. Even you haven't disputed my reading of the law in the LOTG, only said that I should be using a different definition which gives a different outcome. If that's not a change in the laws, I don't know what is!
Click to expand...
Law has not necessarily changed, the guidance of how to interpret it has, or has at least been attempted to try and simplify it.

I’m not really sure what else you want me to say. You have been provided information by senior colleagues, as well as the exact same information that is being given out by the PGMOL & IFAB. By all means ignore this information and carry on with your own interpretation. But as you move up the ladder, you will be expected to follow and keep up to date with these interpretations. Failure to do this will result in being penalised on observations. On top of that, a referee won’t really appreciate you flagging for something that is going against the advice you’re being given.

If you’re fortunate enough to get to a contrib level and try to argue this with an observer, you won’t get very far.

We’re going round in circles here, so I’ll leave this as my last post on the matter.
 
Runner-Ref said:
That bottom analogy doesn't really work as you don't need to intend to foul someone for it to be a foul.
Click to expand...
True but the number of attempted tackles are I would imagine in the high 90s normally that just shy of being successful.

Anyway, I heard this same event occured in the Crystal Palace game although I've not seen it. I can only assume there was definite proof of intention for the defender to head or pass the ball to the opposition player for it to be ok.
 
Runner-Ref said:
Law has not necessarily changed, the guidance of how to interpret it has, or has at least been attempted to try and simplify it.

I’m not really sure what else you want me to say. You have been provided information by senior colleagues, as well as the exact same information that is being given out by the PGMOL & IFAB. By all means ignore this information and carry on with your own interpretation. But as you move up the ladder, you will be expected to follow and keep up to date with these interpretations. Failure to do this will result in being penalised on observations. On top of that, a referee won’t really appreciate you flagging for something that is going against the advice you’re being given.

If you’re fortunate enough to get to a contrib level and try to argue this with an observer, you won’t get very far.

We’re going round in circles here, so I’ll leave this as my last post on the matter.
Click to expand...
I do not think for a second that you really believe the first line of this post. And that's the problem. It doesn't really matter what IFAB claim, it is a de facto law change.

What you're failing to do is explain why this is at all acceptable. I'm a qualified ref who probably does more work that most in terms of studying annual law changes, coming on here to discuss and make sure I understand them etc. And when seeing this incident, I went to my copy of the 2022/23 season laws, scoured them and confirmed that yes, my trained understanding that this was a valid goal is backed up by the written law. Except of course now I'm told that someone got an email and so the official text is wrong? Nonsense.


If we're treating LOTG as primary source and "other IFAB comms" as secondary source, then "random contrib observers opinion" doesn't make either of those lists. And you can stop bothering to bring up their holy opinions, because I certainly have no plans to progress for the next season or two. Ditto referring to the knowledge of "senior colleagues" - if we believe senior colleagues can do no wrong, what's the point of the "As seen on TV" section? They don't come much more senior than that.
 
This is entirely IFABs fault, they have sent out guidance during the season that, at best clouds the offside law, and arguably even contradicts it. I suspect it was sent to all referees in the higher levels of the game, but most grass roots referees only found out about it on forums like this. I read that as they just wanted high profile issues in the professional game sorted rather than trying to change the offside law mid-season. I can kind of see the point, as at grass roots it is probably going to a lot easier to work out what was a play and what a deflection, but of course in putting on their website some grass roots referees are going to see it.
 
Heck, and (sadly) what percent of grass roots refs are going to read it if they see it? While there are definitely many who try to stay completely up to speed (hence forums like this), a lot don't. Indeed, not all even feel compelled to follow the current version of the Laws or guidance. I recently reffed a trio of games, and my AR from one game became the ref for the next with me as AR. In the brief pre-game we had time for, I asked my ARs to remember to be patient and wait for involvement. When his turn came, he said not to do what I said, but to signal more quickly, because they were going to fix that problem in the next few years. :eek::confused: He's not the first ref I've ARd for who decided he knew what OS was better than IFAB does, and we should do it his way. :(
 
socal lurker said:
Heck, and (sadly) what percent of grass roots refs are going to read it if they see it? While there are definitely many who try to stay completely up to speed (hence forums like this), a lot don't. Indeed, not all even feel compelled to follow the current version of the Laws or guidance. I recently reffed a trio of games, and my AR from one game became the ref for the next with me as AR. In the brief pre-game we had time for, I asked my ARs to remember to be patient and wait for involvement. When his turn came, he said not to do what I said, but to signal more quickly, because they were going to fix that problem in the next few years. :eek::confused: He's not the first ref I've ARd for who decided he knew what OS was better than IFAB does, and we should do it his way. :(
Click to expand...
Absolutely, in recent seasons I've seen players cautioned for dissent and not sin binned, and insisting that goal kicks leave the penalty area before the ball can be played again. Those referees clearly haven't even kept up to date with law and competition rule changes, there's zero chance they will be going onto the IFAB website to look for circulars.
 
GraemeS said:
I do not think for a second that you really believe the first line of this post. And that's the problem. It doesn't really matter what IFAB claim, it is a de facto law change.

What you're failing to do is explain why this is at all acceptable. I'm a qualified ref who probably does more work that most in terms of studying annual law changes, coming on here to discuss and make sure I understand them etc. And when seeing this incident, I went to my copy of the 2022/23 season laws, scoured them and confirmed that yes, my trained understanding that this was a valid goal is backed up by the written law. Except of course now I'm told that someone got an email and so the official text is wrong? Nonsense.


If we're treating LOTG as primary source and "other IFAB comms" as secondary source, then "random contrib observers opinion" doesn't make either of those lists. And you can stop bothering to bring up their holy opinions, because I certainly have no plans to progress for the next season or two. Ditto referring to the knowledge of "senior colleagues" - if we believe senior colleagues can do no wrong, what's the point of the "As seen on TV" section? They don't come much more senior than that.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with you Graeme that the 'clarification' is nothing of the sort but to all intents a change in the Law. The first introduction of this happening a couple of weeks before the season start, was extremely ill judged and ill timed and has led to a mass of confusion where little existed before. Despite the best efforts of IFAB, FIFA, PGMOL etc since that date, it remains one of the most confusing and debatable areas of the Law (against stiff competition!).
Having said all of that, based on everything that has been shared with me / put in the 'public' domain, this is currently 100% intended to be classed as a Deflection and as such it's absolutely a Clear & Obvious Error that meets the threshold for a VAR intervention. It's just a bizarre situation where the layman's totally understandable interpretation of what is a Deliberate Play has ended up completely at odds with the IFAB desired interpretation.
Net net, the correct outcome delivered by the officials but further fuel on the fire for those who wish to see conspiracies and corruption impacting 'their' team.
 
Yeah, I saw that series of clips. I believe him when he says they are provided as specific training examples, but I would still say a few of them "feel" wrong regardless. Specifically, those where the deflection takes the ball to someone the attacker wasn't trying to play the ball to and that player is then flagged offside feel very harsh, and that's also what grates about the one we've been talking about in this thread.

I know we don't typically like refereeing on outcomes, but I do wonder if there is a place for it somewhere in the offside law when judging deflections?
 
GraemeS said:
Yeah, I saw that series of clips. I believe him when he says they are provided as specific training examples, but I would still say a few of them "feel" wrong regardless. Specifically, those where the deflection takes the ball to someone the attacker wasn't trying to play the ball to and that player is then flagged offside feel very harsh, and that's also what grates about the one we've been talking about in this thread.

I know we don't typically like refereeing on outcomes, but I do wonder if there is a place for it somewhere in the offside law when judging deflections?
Click to expand...
I agree - I'm no fan of the outcome of the way these clips / considerations tell us how to interpret Deliberate vs Deflection. However, hopefully, whether you or I like it or not, they make clear to all of us that the decision reached by the officials in this match was the expected one according to the guidance they've been given, including the VAR seeing it as worthy of an intervention.
I would be unsurprised if the guidance gets further changed in the future given the lack of understanding / buy in to the current interpretation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top