A&H

Norwich v Leicester

Big Cat said:
Not the first time I've been friendless 😿
Guess I've been swept away by the 'unfairness' of the outcome
Click to expand...
That's where you lose me--why is it "unfair" that someone who deliberately attempted to interfere with the GK was punished for it? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
 
The Referee Store
socal lurker said:
That's where you lose me--why is it "unfair" that someone who deliberately attempted to interfere with the GK was punished for it? If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Click to expand...
So I would say, "What exists in players' minds is mostly a figment of Referees' imagination because players' minds are devoid of intelligent thought"
Players are stood in front of the GK on almost every corner, but we rarely disallow a goal for this reason. This incident was conspicuous, only because the offender was the only one (unusually) left near Schmeichel. Normally, there's a bunch of players crowding the GA
I accept how the book reads and I accept that it's expected to give offside in this instance. But I don't think the interference had any meaningful impact on the keeper and Schmeichel had absolutely no chance of preventing the goal, even in the absence of the Norwich player. Therefore, I see it as a good goal, disallowed because the rule doesn't allow for my argument, because the rules can't cater for 'all things'
 
Big Cat said:
So I would say, "What exists in players' minds is mostly a figment of Referees' imagination because players' minds are devoid of intelligent thought"
Players are stood in front of the GK on almost every corner, but we rarely disallow a goal for this reason. This incident was conspicuous, only because the offender was the only one (unusually) left near Schmeichel. Normally, there's a bunch of players crowding the GA
I accept how the book reads and I accept that it's expected to give offside in this instance. But I don't think the interference had any meaningful impact on the keeper and Schmeichel had absolutely no chance of preventing the goal, even in the absence of the Norwich player. Therefore, I see it as a good goal, disallowed because the rule doesn't allow for my argument, because the rules can't cater for 'all things'
Click to expand...

the goal is not disallowed by the attacker standing in the gk line of sight
it was disallowed because the player doing the standing, was offside
Had there been a Leics plsyer holding the post, then, absolutely its a goal
 
Big Cat said:
But I don't think the interference had any meaningful impact on the keeper and Schmeichel had absolutely no chance of preventing the goal, even in the absence of the Norwich player.
Click to expand...
Disagree with this but even so let me give you an analogy.

A ball is put through. It takes a very slight touch of an offside player who had no intent to play the ball and makes no other impacts after that. The touch of the ball has no meaningful impact on the angle or pace of the ball's movement. The attacker which the through ball was intended for runs through and scores with the next touch. Is disallowing this goal unfair?

Not for me, an offence has been committed according to the laws everyone knows and expects to be enforced. That makes it fair.
 
Anubis said:
the goal is not disallowed by the attacker standing in the gk line of sight
it was disallowed because the player doing the standing, was offside
Had there been a Leics plsyer holding the post, then, absolutely its a goal
Click to expand...
Standing in an offside position is not an offence. This player did not touch the ball. Therefore, unless he was blocking the goalkeeper's line of sight (or interfering with an opponent in some other way) there is no offside offence.
 
Peter Grove said:
Standing in an offside position is not an offence. This player did not touch the ball. Therefore, unless he was blocking the goalkeeper's line of sight (or interfering with an opponent in some other way) there is no offside offence.
Click to expand...

he was in line of vision, in an offside position
had he been standing there, yet a defender was on the post, it woukd be a goal
 
Anubis said:
he was in line of vision, in an offside position
had he been standing there, yet a defender was on the post, it woukd be a goal
Click to expand...
I still can't tell what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that it's not an offence because he's interfering with an opponent, it's an offence simply because he was standing in an offside position.

If that's what you're saying, it's wrong. If that's not what you're saying, then please explain what you do mean.
 
Peter Grove said:
I still can't tell what you're saying here. You seem to be saying that it's not an offence because he's interfering with an opponent, it's an offence simply because he was standing in an offside position.

If that's what you're saying, it's wrong. If that's not what you're saying, then please explain what you do mean.
Click to expand...
The attacker was standing in an offside position - not in itself an offence as you say. However, as he was in the line of vision of the goalkeeper whilst standing in an offside position it was an offside offence.
 
LothianRef said:
The attacker was standing in an offside position - not in itself an offence as you say. However, as he was in the line of vision of the goalkeeper whilst standing in an offside position it was an offside offence.
Click to expand...
So, purely for the giggles .... :rolleyes:

If the GK was 7 foot tall and the attacker was 5 foot tall (and as such the attacker was not materially impacting the GK's line of vision) then would this be an offside offence?

Reason for asking / prolonging the agony of this thread, is that nowadays, in the vast majority of offside situations, the benefit of any doubt seems to go to the attacking side. At what point does that approach start to hold true in 'line of vision' type cases?
 
Russell Jones said:
So, purely for the giggles .... :rolleyes:

If the GK was 7 foot tall and the attacker was 5 foot tall (and as such the attacker was not materially impacting the GK's line of vision) then would this be an offside offence?

Reason for asking / prolonging the agony of this thread, is that nowadays, in the vast majority of offside situations, the benefit of any doubt seems to go to the attacking side. At what point does that approach start to hold true in 'line of vision' type cases?
Click to expand...
Lotg uses the word 'clearly' in "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision". In your example, it clearly isn't clearly with two feet difference in standing position (well unless the pass was made from two yards away on the ground... Trigonometry and all that). And for the case in OP game from video evidence he was clearly in the line of vision.

But I do get your point and I have already answered the question. When there is doubt, I would look at the intent of the offside player to sway the benefit.
 
Russell Jones said:
So, purely for the giggles .... :rolleyes:

If the GK was 7 foot tall and the attacker was 5 foot tall (and as such the attacker was not materially impacting the GK's line of vision) then would this be an offside offence?

Reason for asking / prolonging the agony of this thread, is that nowadays, in the vast majority of offside situations, the benefit of any doubt seems to go to the attacking side. At what point does that approach start to hold true in 'line of vision' type cases?
Click to expand...
The referee would have to decide if the player prevented the goalkeeper from playing the ball. Players stood near the goalkeeper at a corner kick usually do so to prevent the goalkeeper from playing the ball so it would likely be an offside offence.

(Remember, even if the goalkeeper's vision is blocked by an opponent, an offside offence is only committed if the goalkeeper is prevented from playing the ball.)
 
I think there is more than vision to think about. Keepers often take a step or two forward before diving, they can't do that with an attacker in an offside position pretty much standing on their toes. It can therefore be argued that the offside player has interfered with the movement of the player towards the ball.
 
We're overlooking the frequency with which such incidents happen. Granted, not as conspicuous as the Norwich one, but I'm inclined to avoid being too 'busy' either in the middle or on the line. OK, so my OP has been a worthwhile discussion, but I ain't getting involved in anything less obvious
 
Big Cat said:
We're overlooking the frequency with which such incidents happen. Granted, not as conspicuous as the Norwich one, but I'm inclined to avoid being too 'busy' either in the middle or on the line. OK, so my OP has been a worthwhile discussion, but I ain't getting involved in anything less obvious
Click to expand...

Usually though it is much less obvious. The attacker will be stood either side, or a bit further away. And probably most importantly, the keeper often turns round and picks the ball out of the goal without a word of protest, no official is going to get involved there as doing so would surprise everyone.

This one ticked all of the boxes. Proximity to keeper, couldn't have been more directly in front of him, and Schmeichel was clearly unhappy. I would hazard a guess he had pointed it out to the officials before the set piece was even taken.
 
I think by now the smartest players (and lord knows why that's not all of them on that much cash) know that they need to appeal this "line of sight" to get a decision. Schmeichel has done well there.

Personally I think the very strict interpretation of line of sight that has become "law" is daft and encourages attackers to faff around goal hanging. The hawk eye approach to this is just not fair on goalkeepers IMHO.

Even with a quite strict interpretation this was an easy decision I think.
 
Don't know if anyone saw the Bolton v Burton game yesterday, but the issue arose again. For me, I can see exactly why the R & AR came to the conclusion that they did, but Bolton and the pundits seemed to think they'd been robbed.... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top