The Ref Stop

Birmingham City v WBA

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

The Gump

The Gump

Well-Known Member
Level 6 Referee
We spend a lot of time on here dissecting decisions that are controversial or might have been different, so I thought I'd post a clip of an excellent offside decision by the AR. I really don't think there can be any debate about whether it's the correct decision or not - very close to the GK, in line of sight, and attempts to play the ball. A top class decision in a cauldron deserves recognising. 👏👏👏


(Clip starts at 7 minutes if it doesn't default there)
 
The Ref Stop
He doesn't attempt to play the ball, he ducks under it but that's enough for obvious action similar to Robertson one.

If you're touch tight to the goalkeeper when your player heads it these should be offside whatever the subsequent action.
 
And yet their Manager considers it would have been a goal if the Championship had VAR (don’t think so!). I think he is just trying to save his job/appease his supporters. Perhaps he should consider not having a player positioned in front of the goalkeeper in the first place.
 
bester said:
He doesn't attempt to play the ball, he ducks under it but that's enough for obvious action similar to Robertson one.

If you're touch tight to the goalkeeper when your player heads it these should be offside whatever the subsequent action.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth, I think he initially ducks but then tries to get a glancing header. Regardless, I agree with you. And whether you penalise under 'Attempting to play a ball which is close" or "Obvious Action" the offence is still there.

There will always be those (like the commentator) who will question whether the GK would be able to make the save in any case ... but we've all seen 'worldie' saves and the GK having to delay his movement even slightly because of the actions of an attacker standing in a clear offside position, 6 yards out and close to him is, IMO, clear impact.

I'd hope there was also (at least) one dissent caution for the behaviour right in front of the AR, which stopped him being able to complete the offside signal.
 
Russell Jones said:
For what it's worth, I think he initially ducks but then tries to get a glancing header. Regardless, I agree with you. And whether you penalise under 'Attempting to play a ball which is close" or "Obvious Action" the offence is still there.

There will always be those (like the commentator) who will question whether the GK would be able to make the save in any case ... but we've all seen 'worldie' saves and the GK having to delay his movement even slightly because of the actions of an attacker standing in a clear offside position, 6 yards out and close to him is, IMO, clear impact.

I'd hope there was also (at least) one dissent caution for the behaviour right in front of the AR, which stopped him being able to complete the offside signal.
Click to expand...
Whereby in respect of your final para i considered the Referee was very slow to move across to support him.
 
I've always maintained, not from a law perspective, but from a footballing perspective, if you don't want to be given offside, don't stand in an offside position. If you're in an offside position, you're at risk of being considered to be interfering with an opponent.
 
RefereeX said:
I've always maintained, not from a law perspective, but from a footballing perspective, if you don't want to be given offside, don't stand in an offside position. If you're in an offside position, you're at risk of being considered to be interfering with an opponent.
Click to expand...
I fondly reminisce about the days when players made clear their intention not to interfere with play by standing still and putting two hands in the air ... obviously these days they'd probably end up getting penalised for an unnatural position handball :rolleyes:
 
bester said:
He doesn't attempt to play the ball, he ducks under it but that's enough for obvious action similar to Robertson one.

If you're touch tight to the goalkeeper when your player heads it these should be offside whatever the subsequent action.
Click to expand...

my suggestion would be to draw a triangle from the ball to both posts - if you're offside within those lines then you're off, no ifs/buts etc - makes it crystal clear and will help stop a lot of this tomfoolery on corners
 
Russell Jones said:
For what it's worth, I think he initially ducks but then tries to get a glancing header. Regardless, I agree with you. And whether you penalise under 'Attempting to play a ball which is close" or "Obvious Action" the offence is still there.
Click to expand...
That's where I was - looks like a clear attempt at a flick with his head, but regardless of where you stand on that it's still offside.
Russell Jones said:
I'd hope there was also (at least) one dissent caution for the behaviour right in front of the AR, which stopped him being able to complete the offside signal.
Click to expand...
Nope - was watching it live and no cautions issued.
 
es1 said:
my suggestion would be to draw a triangle from the ball to both posts - if you're offside within those lines then you're off, no ifs/buts etc - makes it crystal clear and will help stop a lot of this tomfoolery on corners
Click to expand...
Good suggestion but needs some work. Put all defenders, including the goalkeeper clearly outside that triangle and it would be absolutely unfair to call it an offence (unless he touches the ball). A few other less unfair but still unfair scenarios. I suspect to make it completely fair it would become complex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: es1
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top