A&H

Ajax v Tottenham

L

ladbroke8745

RefChat Addict
Has the referee applied the offside (and restart) wrong here?

Assistant flags against the Ajax player for offside, despite the Tottenham player getting to the ball and playing it forward. The ball was played by Tottenham about 4-5 yards in the Ajax half when the offside offence was committed.
The Tottenham free kick could have been taken in the Ajax half as per the most recent updated laws but he made them take it back to the half way line. They "took" the free kick literally on the line and he said no, retake it. They took it again about half a yard inside their half and he was happy with it. I mean half a yard?! I thought it was legal in the Ajax half, but to go back twice is a joke.
 
The Referee Store
Oh the time wasting by the Ajax keeper paid dividends......

After Liverpool against Barcelona, I did not think another comeback was going to happen by Tottenham....

But you have to think - Barcelona rested I think 8 of their players for their league defeat at the weekend for their loss last night, and Eredivisie gave Ajax and the whole league a weekend off to assist their campaign... neither won.
 
What a fortnight, 2 English teams in the Champions league final, Blades in the Prem along with Leeds Norwich :cool: What a time to be alive!!!
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Has the referee applied the offside (and restart) wrong here?

Assistant flags against the Ajax player for offside, despite the Tottenham player getting to the ball and playing it forward. The ball was played by Tottenham about 4-5 yards in the Ajax half when the offside offence was committed.
The Tottenham free kick could have been taken in the Ajax half as per the most recent updated laws but he made them take it back to the half way line. They "took" the free kick literally on the line and he said no, retake it. They took it again about half a yard inside their half and he was happy with it. I mean half a yard?! I thought it was legal in the Ajax half, but to go back twice is a joke.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it - I noticed the same thing and was going to comment on it. In fact I notice that many, if not most times the AR's are still indicating for the offside free kick to be taken where the player was when the ball was touched by a team mate and not where the player became active.

It seems to me as though the new directive on where the free kick for an offside offence should be taken is being pretty routinely ignored.
 
Peter Grove said:
It seems to me as though the new directive on where the free kick for an offside offence should be taken is being pretty routinely ignored.
Click to expand...
Which in most cases easily translates to trifling, if you you are taking a free kick deep in your own half. Mostly due it being an easier process for AR's.

But in OP it's not just ignoring the new directive/law, it's enforcing the old law which is more than trifling.
 
one said:
Which in most cases easily translates to trifling, if you you are taking a free kick deep in your own half. Mostly due it being an easier process for AR's
Click to expand...
Possibly true but there are still plenty of instances where it is not trifling and the free kick ends up being taken 20 or 30 yards away from where it should have been under the new provisions. I would go so far as to say that I can't actually recall a time when an AR (and/or referee) has actually and clearly applied the new ruling - apart from a couple of occasions when they did actually allow the free kick to be taken in the player's own half of the field. Whenever the free kick is in the defending team's half, it is almost invariably exactly where it would have been under the old version of the laws.

The other thing they do, which I don't understand, is flag for offside when the player has clearly not become involved in active play.The typical scenario for this is when a long ball is played over the top and the ball is running out of play for either a goal kick or throw-in. A player who was in an offside position is chasing the ball but is never going to catch it and is not interfering with an opponent (or remotely likely to) but the AR still flags and the referee compounds the error by awarding the free kick instead of waving the flag down.
 
Peter Grove said:
The other thing they do, which I don't understand, is flag for offside when the player has clearly not become involved in active play.The typical scenario for this is when a long ball is played over the top and the ball is running out of play for either a goal kick or throw-in. A player who was in an offside position is chasing the ball but is never going to catch it and is not interfering with an opponent (or remotely likely to) but the AR still flags and the referee compounds the error by awarding the free kick instead of waving the flag down.
Click to expand...

In situations like the one mentioned here, ARs often will still flag (and are normally instructed by their center referees) when the player chasing the ball is involved in the play and will be the only one who could be. I often want my ARs to flag this to 1) show everyone that yes, there is an offside offense and 2) reduce the possibility of a needless collision. I agree that in the case you mentioned that it's actually more advantageous for the defenders to have a goal kick than a free kick deep in the corner. The center should wave the flag down (or apply "advantage" here and award the goal kick since it's better for the defense), but I personally still want these kinds of plays flagged to maximize player safety. Plus, if a player sees a flag, maybe they don't have to make that extra 20-30 yard run. That can sometimes give the referee crew some extra political capital later in the match.
 
Peter Grove said:
Beat me to it - I noticed the same thing and was going to comment on it. In fact I notice that many, if not most times the AR's are still indicating for the offside free kick to be taken where the player was when the ball was touched by a team mate and not where the player became active.

It seems to me as though the new directive on where the free kick for an offside offence should be taken is being pretty routinely ignored.
Click to expand...
I was with a bunch of CORE trained young English guys the other week. They are trained to stop where they flag, and also to hold the flag in position (horizontal, raised or low, depending on if mid, far, near) until the taker of the IDFK places the ball.

I pointed out how daft that is because it means 98/100 IDFKs will be taken from the wrong place and there’s no chance of one ever being taken from the other half - and every ”coming back” offside will be taken from the wrong place without fail... but the guys were like ”that’s how the chiefs want it.”

It makes far more sense to me to complete the flag, get it down, snd then subtly crab level to where it should be spotted... or if wrong half or close to centre line ref should aid the spotting if required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
RefIADad said:
In situations like the one mentioned here, ARs often will still flag (and are normally instructed by their center referees) when the player chasing the ball is involved in the play and will be the only one who could be. I often want my ARs to flag this to 1) show everyone that yes, there is an offside offense and 2) reduce the possibility of a needless collision. I agree that in the case you mentioned that it's actually more advantageous for the defenders to have a goal kick than a free kick deep in the corner. The center should wave the flag down (or apply "advantage" here and award the goal kick since it's better for the defense), but I personally still want these kinds of plays flagged to maximize player safety. Plus, if a player sees a flag, maybe they don't have to make that extra 20-30 yard run. That can sometimes give the referee crew some extra political capital later in the match.
Click to expand...

There are different scenarios that are supposed to be treated differently:
  • OSP player likely to be involved in collision with keeper--flag it. (Interference with an opponent appears inevitable.)
  • OSP player only player plausibly to get the ball--flag it. (Interference with play inevitable. [IIRC this is diagram 5 in the back of the magic book])
  • OSP player chasing, but most likely to leave the field untouched. (Do not flag it--no active involvement has occurred and it is not going to. [IIRC this is diagram 4 in the back of the magic book])
The fact that a defensive team would rather have an OS call in the third scenario is irrelevant--no infraction has occurred.
 
RefIADad said:
In situations like the one mentioned here, ARs often will still flag (and are normally instructed by their center referees) when the player chasing the ball is involved in the play and will be the only one who could be. I often want my ARs to flag this to 1) show everyone that yes, there is an offside offense and 2) reduce the possibility of a needless collision. I agree that in the case you mentioned that it's actually more advantageous for the defenders to have a goal kick than a free kick deep in the corner. The center should wave the flag down (or apply "advantage" here and award the goal kick since it's better for the defense), but I personally still want these kinds of plays flagged to maximize player safety. Plus, if a player sees a flag, maybe they don't have to make that extra 20-30 yard run. That can sometimes give the referee crew some extra political capital later in the match.
Click to expand...
Those are different scenarios to the one I'm talking about. The advice in the Practical Guidelines for Match Officials clearly sets forth that:
A player in an offside position may be penalised before playing or touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.
Click to expand...
That provision deals with a situation where the player actually had a chance of playing the ball. It was brought in precisely to cover the scenario that was occurring repeatedly, after some of the recent changes in the offside law, where a player in a clearly offside position would chase the ball for 30 or 40 yards with no flag being raised, sometimes pausing along the way (because they pretty much knew they were offside) before finally playing the ball and finally being flagged for becoming active.

I'm talking about situations where the player was never, ever going to reach the ball and in some cases had already given up the chase, as the ball was clearly going out of play. Sometimes the flag even goes up just prior to the ball going out of play. As I mentioned, it also happens when there is absolutely no chance of any collision or even a challenge for the ball occurring.

The situation covered in the guidelines and the 'risk of collision' scenario are both legitimate reasons for calling the offside, the scenario I'm talking about and which we see every week (and sometimes several times in one game) is not justifiable or understandable at all, to my way of thinking.
 
santa sangria said:
It makes far more sense to me to complete the flag, get it down, snd then subtly crab level to where it should be spotted... or if wrong half or close to centre line ref should aid the spotting if required.
Click to expand...
This is what is taught here. But I don't see any reason for the AR not to crab to the opposite side to flag for the position. Why can't AR's cross the half way line when it serves a beneficial purpose and any negative impact is almost non-existant?
 
Seen another incident, via a fan made video, that has got me thinking what would others have down....

Basically, about a minute before Tottenham scored that winner the ball went out of play.
The keeper went to the left of his goal to get a ball from the ball boy whilst a defender went and got a ball from the right of the goal. He then dragged it onto the field of play and kicked it towards the touchline, hard enough to reach, but not enough to leave the field of play - forcing Son to go and get it and kick it off so game was not delayed further.
This to me is caution for delaying the restart. He knew what he was doing.

On top of that the keeper, after being cautioned, threw the ball away behind the goal in disgust at the booking and got thrown another from another ball boy. Surely he should have placed that particular ball down. Again, this is delaying the restart, even if by another 10 or so seconds. The fact he'd wasted so much time throughout the game and only got a caution in the last minute is beyond me.

Question is, would you have cautioned him again and would you have cautioned the defender for bringing on the other ball to delay the restart?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=468623293878492
 
ladbroke8745 said:
Seen another incident, via a fan made video, that has got me thinking what would others have down....

Basically, about a minute before Tottenham scored that winner the ball went out of play.
The keeper went to the left of his goal to get a ball from the ball boy whilst a defender went and got a ball from the right of the goal. He then dragged it onto the field of play and kicked it towards the touchline, hard enough to reach, but not enough to leave the field of play - forcing Son to go and get it and kick it off so game was not delayed further.
This to me is caution for delaying the restart. He knew what he was doing.

On top of that the keeper, after being cautioned, threw the ball away behind the goal in disgust at the booking and got thrown another from another ball boy. Surely he should have placed that particular ball down. Again, this is delaying the restart, even if by another 10 or so seconds. The fact he'd wasted so much time throughout the game and only got a caution in the last minute is beyond me.

Question is, would you have cautioned him again and would you have cautioned the defender for bringing on the other ball to delay the restart?

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=468623293878492
Click to expand...
As per the video, no for both. For the first one it was an attempt to delay the restart but it didn't. Technically it would be incorrect in law to caution for it. Given there is only a minute or so left I wouldn't even bother with a quiet word.

It would have been correct in law to caution for the second one (unless there was something wrong with the ball), but for a number of reasons I wouldn't have. The main ones being he was just cautioned and the delay was very minimal (4 seconds from the time he should have put the first ball down to the time he put the second ball down).
 
one said:
As per the video, no for both. For the first one it was an attempt to delay the restart but it didn't. Technically it would be incorrect in law to caution for it. Given there is only a minute or so left I wouldn't even bother with a quiet word.

It would have been correct in law to caution for the second one (unless there was something wrong with the ball), but for a number of reasons I wouldn't have. The main ones being he was just cautioned and the delay was very minimal (4 seconds from the time he should have put the first ball down to the time he put the second ball down).
Click to expand...
Agree on the first, though I would have a word to show I’ve seen it, give a strong warning and make it clear I’m adding time.

On the second, when I see the GK throwing the ball away (unless the GK has just said it’s broken) I’m probably blowing and cautioning.

Your reasoning in 2 doesn’t fit for me because I think anyone blowing does it before he gets the other ball and takes the kick. So, you don’t know that he would get it off so quick!

Context though. This has worked out fine for the ref here. If you warn the def for 30 seconds and then add on a minute for all thd faffing that also could work out fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top