Ajax Bayern

[JamesL]

You went on to admit that playing the ball deliberately with the arm would be an offence.
You're saying offside is reset from a DHB, I haven't debated that point.
The referee did not play advantage therefore he did not see a handball offence.

There's 3 options here (if it hit an arm, I haven't seen a good replay):
1. DHB - penalty (ref didn't give it)
2. DHB - advantage and no offside (ref didn't signal advantage)
3. Deflection - offside

I think you misunderstand my point. Read back what you actually wrote and what you responded to for context, and my response. I still havent seen the incident, all I am saying is that a deliberate handball is considered a deliberate play, for the purposes of offside, the referee can play advantage. You seemed to suggest that there are only two options of penalising the handball or penalising offside.

 

[JH]

Look at the referee's position, he has no intention of penalising any encroachment as he can't possibly see it. He can't see both the ball and the players over his right shoulder (who haven't encroached but could).

When he's got a 5th man on the goal line, why doesn't he turn half towards the players and get the ball, kicker and players in view?

 

[santa sangria]

The defender has definately touched the ball before that last goal and attacker who touched it was clearly in an offside position. Options here are:

1. Not deliberate play by defender. This means a deflection and offside should have been called.

2. Deliberate play by defender:
2.a. deliberate handball. I don't see any decent referee playing advantage for it. There is still a fair bit of work to do and advice is unless it's rolling in or a very simple tap in, give the penalty. The ref did not signal advantage either. Given the defender put his hands (and arms) behind his back as well, I am ruling this option out.

2.b. not deliberate handball. This would make the touch a save and that means the attacker should have been called for offside.

Whichever way I look at this, it looks like an error by the third team

Beautifully put number one

 

[JH]

I think you misunderstand my point. Read back what you actually wrote and what you responded to for context, and my response. I still havent seen the incident, all I am saying is that a deliberate handball is considered a deliberate play, for the purposes of offside, the referee can play advantage. You seemed to suggest that there are only two options of penalising the handball or penalising offside.

Think we're genuinely misunderstanding each other.

1. DHB is considered deliberate play - fine
2. Ref can play advantage for offside - fine
3. Ref didn't play advantage, agreed?
4. If he didn't play advantage, he didn't see it as a DHB, agreed?
5. If it wasn't DHB, it was certainly a deflection in this case, therefore offside.

 

[JH]

Ive only seen the still version so could be wrong here but unless the ajax scorer is the player closest to the official behind the goal all other players look ON SIDE (Bayern player in Left Back position)

It is that player, yes

 

[AlexF]

Ref didn't play advantage, agreed?

Well, the direction in UEFA (not in England as I understand it though?) is that advantage should not be visibly played within the penalty area and it should be considered a "silent" advantage -- because the only advantage that should accrue within the penalty area is... a goal.

From the time where the defender makes contact with the ball to the goal is about a second and a half, well within the 3-5s recommended for determining if advantage should be played.

Once the ball goes in, the Ajax players pile into the goal and the AAR and Referee rush onto the scene, so there's not really time to show the advantage signal there either, even if he was going to do so...

 

[JH]

Well, the direction in UEFA (not in England as I understand it though?) is that advantage should not be visibly played within the penalty area and it should be considered a "silent" advantage -- because the only advantage that should accrue within the penalty area is... a goal.

From the time where the defender makes contact with the ball to the goal is about a second and a half, well within the 3-5s recommended for determining if advantage should be played.

Once the ball goes in, the Ajax players pile into the goal and the AAR and Referee rush onto the scene, so there's not really time to show the advantage signal there either, even if he was going to do so...

I'm not a mind reader but I seriously doubt he even saw the alleged handball, there was a player right in front of the contact between player and ball.

 

[AlexF]

I'm not a mind reader but I seriously doubt he even saw the alleged handball, there was a player right in front of the contact between player and ball.

You're moving the goalposts now. We're talking about an advantage call.

But to address that, the player is putting arms out, turning the body, and it strikes the arms outside the body. Whether that information came from the referee or the AAR isn't for us to say or know, but the point of a "silent advantage" still holds.

 

[JH]

You're moving the goalposts now. We're talking about an advantage call.

But to address that, the player is putting arms out, turning the body, and it strikes the arms outside the body. Whether that information came from the referee or the AAR isn't for us to say or know, but the point of a "silent advantage" still holds.

So you think within the split second following the shot he communicated that to his assistant? Almost instantly before he put it away?

 

[one]

Well, the direction in UEFA (not in England as I understand it though?) is that advantage should not be visibly played within the penalty area and it should be considered a "silent" advantage -- because the only advantage that should accrue within the penalty area is... a goal.

From the time where the defender makes contact with the ball to the goal is about a second and a half, well within the 3-5s recommended for determining if advantage should be played.

Once the ball goes in, the Ajax players pile into the goal and the AAR and Referee rush onto the scene, so there's not really time to show the advantage signal there either, even if he was going to do so...

Are you suggesting this is the case here?

1. the referee though it was deliberate handball by defender? AND
2. He played advantage?

If you are saying there is a remote chance this may have happened, I can understand that. If you are saying it is the likelihood case over a case of an error, I seriously doubt it (See my previous post on why I think that way)

 

[one]

player is putting arms out,

The player put his arms behind his back, then turned.

Edit: looking at it again and again, the defender with hand behind back didn't touch the ball. Very difficult to say where the hand is of the defender who touched the ball from my replays on a small screen. And infact hard to tell which defender touched the ball from close up replays.

 

[AlexF]

Are you suggesting this is the case here?

No, it happened so fast that I think that it was more a case of "wow, the ball's in the goal, uh... advantage?"

 

[JH]

Come on guys, it was a deflection, admit it.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

I haven't seen an angle that shows the handling, so I can't comment on that - but either way it's not a goal; it's a save for me, meets the criteria.

 

[bester]

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)

 

[santa sangria]

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)

Interesting but you've highlighted poor wording here. Surely it should say "with any part of the body except <current handball wording>".

Surely the intent of that phrase is not that we should ignore accidental (no offence) player hand ball for offside?

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Interesting but you've highlighted poor wording here. Surely it should say "with any part of the body except <current handball wording>".

Surely the intent of that phrase is not that we should ignore accidental (no offence) player hand ball for offside?

You're right that the wording is poor and contradictory.
I'd agree that if the handling is accidental, then it still constitutes a save.

 

[bester]

When is an accidental save involving the arms realistically going to be a deliberate play? The save exemption is applied in the context of deliberate plays.

" A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)

 

[one]

When is an accidental save involving the arms realistically going to be a deliberate play? The save exemption is applied in the context of deliberate plays.

This has been the subject of previous debates, a few posts earlier on this thread and I started another thread on it recently. IMO it is possible for the ball to make contact with the hand and constitute deliberate play but not deliberate handball. Many agreed with this view in the past debates but it was not unanimous.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

When is an accidental save involving the arms realistically going to be a deliberate play? The save exemption is applied in the context of deliberate plays.

" A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area)

The problem is that law doesn't account for accidental handling at all.
So, a 'save' is a deliberate action to block a ball - which resets offside EXCEPT when it's a shot on/near goal. I mean, that law is problematic enough - why do these idiots keep complicating it?
Deliberate handling is one thing - and it's been established by Elleray that deliberate handling constitutes playing the ball, so can reset offside.

So deliberate kicking the ball when it's a shot on goal doesn't reset offside, but deliberately handling doesn't? That makes no sense at all.
And if we extend that further - accidental handling also doesn't? Again, that makes no sense whatsoever. The law is contradictory.

Given that the LOTG are usually written very, very badly (it seems that nobody proofreads), I'm putting this one down to the text potentially having an unintended consequence (like when we all thought, for a brief period, that dissent could now be a penalty kick).

Personally I don't have the foggiest what they're trying to achieve with that 'except with the hand' clause.