1) he was not in the line of sight of the goalkeeper so he did not impact keepers ability to play the ballLingard in an offside position right in front of the keeper as Ronaldo shot.
How was that not disallowed? It didn't even need lines to show how far offside he was.
1) he was not in the line of sight of the goalkeeper so he did not impact keepers ability to play the ball
2) go for the offside and united get a pen anyway for the foul On Lingard, which is the reason he ended up there anyway. View attachment 5194
A player right in front of you will interfere with play though.Yes I can see that. But he is not in the line of sight and he is not impacting the keeper ability to play ball. Proven by the fact he plays the ball on the way through to it going in the goal.
Also basic principle of law 11:
View attachment 5197
I strongly reccomend you read law 11 and understand what meaning of interferes with play or an opponent and then ask yourself honestly, without prejudice of any other decison what offence Lingard commits. I think you will find that the answer is noneA player right in front of you will interfere with play though.
Of course not. Where have I suggested that?If that was the Premier league, they'd have disallowed it like on previous occasions, so you are suggesting different rules for the PL v Uefa?
As above. Inconsistency has been rife in football for many years. Even in the PL.Just very frustrating how the inconsistency is ridiculous.
Can't recall or haven't seen it but would reiterate not offence to be offsideLast year Lacazette was ruled as offside for being 1m behind the keeper at the back post against Leicester. This season we have already seen goals disallowed for players being 'near' keepers
Fair itootr.I don't think Lingard was fouled so PK not a consideration for me. Lingard was not interfering with the GK, so not offside. Probably, the EPL have taken the whole interference thing too far of late
If you don't like stills, don't post'emFair itootr.
Not a fan of stills but its all I have to demonstrate why I think it's a foul...
View attachment 5199
1st still shows how far away the defender is when he starts the challenge
View attachment 5200
2nd here shows that after the ball he takes lingard down who was having to try and jump out of the way.
I wouldn't say clear and obvious error. I'm not asking VAR to get involved BAU. But you go to look at the offside you also have to check this too and, in my opinion, that's a careless challenge and trumps the offside (that's not an offside )
Yes but I also thought foul with out looking at stills in real time. As I said it was all I had to demonstrate what I am seeing.If you don't like stills, don't post'em
Anyway, we're agreed on the main point of contention, so we can both sleep well tonight
It absolutely, positively, no way, no how, not now, not ever, in no universe can be interfering with PLAY. That means TOUCHING THE BALL (with one exception not relevant here).As for offside/interfearing with the GK, I think your heading down a rocky road if that is deemed as interfearing with play. Although as it happens if Ronaldos shot hit Lingard it would of been offside(whether the officials or VAR noticed that we will never know).
The biggest 'inconsistency' in football is between different incidents, which players (and pundits) often seem to think are identical, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. They then get rolled up into a 'referee(s) not being consistent' narrative.Someone mentioned the apparent inconsistencies within the PL lately. Dale Johnson from ESPN does his weekly tweet threads on VAR and he made a good point. The consistency is that the VAR has not gotten involved on any of these decisions in the last couple of weeks. The ones called offside by the AR/ref have stood. The goals given by the AR/ref have stood. This is a very difficult decision for the on field refs to make and it is one that is often debateable. So I think it's a good thing we haven't seen the intervention from the VAR in any of these moments lately.
For me, this clearly impacts the goalkeeper's ability to play to the ball. Wider context, the offside law is designed to prevent goal hanging. It is shame that Lindgard might have have ended up there because of a nearly-foul but that can't affect the following decision. This is not actually covered in the LotG. "he didn't make an obvious action, the defender did..."
I disagree fundamentally on this as per my previous post.As the law is written I don't think this can possibly be offside. There are four possible factors for interfering with an opponent ...
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
he definitely hasn't obstructed the keeper's vision
challenging an opponent for the ball
He hasn't challenged for the ball, rather I would say the opposite and he is trying to avoid getting in the way of the ball.
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
As above, he hasn't attempted to play the ball.
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He hasn't really made any action, he is laying on the floor.
I didn't see the game, but did the keeper react and appeal for offside? If not and you give offside here you are surprising everyone, if the keeper is picking the ball out of the net without comment he's as happy as he's going to be immediately after conceding a goal, so I would say just get on with it.