ARS vs LEI

[one]

Does anyone know why Arsenal's 4th minute goal was disallowed? Presumably for offside but which offside clause did it 'break'?

A good discussion point anyway.
It's at 25 second.

 

[santa sangria]

Also here: https://www.caughtoffside.com/2020/...y-lacazette-header-is-disallowed-for-offside/

Granite "footballer impersonator" Xhaka is in an offside position and clearly impacts the GK's ability to play the ball - and makes an obvious action etc etc... He's right where Schmeihel wants to dive and the skip over the ball doesn't help.

This has to be offside for me Trevor. And has to be given otherwise we are begging attackers to goal hang in the goal area.

 

[one]

I am still to make my mind up on this. Its as clear as you say.

Until this moment Xhaka can do what he wants (offside context).



So you are saying if you take him out at this moment, Schemeichel would have likely saved it? I am saying based on experience and flick goals I have seen in the past, he had next to no chance, particular looking at
- Where the flick is
- speed of the ball
- where the ball crossed the line
- where Schemeichel is standing

 

[GraemeS]

Yeah, this is a horrible one to have to call. My first instinct was that the player at the back post (#14) got a touch, but the first replay showed that's not the case. So as @santa sangria suggests, this likely comes down to the level of interference of Xhaka.

However, I think the criteria @one is imposing is stricter than that required by the laws. I don't see any requirement in the laws for Schemichael to have the ability to make a save - for me, you can call this offside based on "making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball".

 

[one]

"impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball".

My point is to this exactly. If Schemeichel had no chance to play the ball, then his ability to play the ball is not impacted. I think that is what is meant by 'impacted'. We have had this in the past where offside was not given when a defender was impeded but too far away from the ball for him to have any chance to play the ball.

 

[bester]

Pawson seemed to gesture the 'keepers eyeline was blocked which is clearly wrong.

Does the VAR Clear & Obvious criteria apply for subjective offside decisions?

 

[Trip]

I think on balance they got this wrong but there's enough doubt to go with the on-field decision. The eye-line thing is clearly not correct.

 

[GraemeS]

I think on balance they got this wrong but there's enough doubt to go with the on-field decision. The eye-line thing is clearly not correct.

I find the PGMOL's habit of putting out "explanation" tweets based on seemingly little more than a guess at what might have happened to be very strange. You'd think they'd at least wait until an official report before putting out an explainer.

 

[Degnann]

Clear offside for me. Xhaka offside less than a yard away from the goalkeeper.

 

[one]

Clear offside for me. Xhaka offside less than a yard away from the goalkeeper.

Is that the criteria to make it an offence?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Clear offside for me. Xhaka offside less than a yard away from the goalkeeper.

Actually that side on picture is deceiving.

They showed behind the goal footage on MOTD2 last night and at the moment the ball is played (the header), from that angle at least, he is NOT interfering with the GK nor impacting his ability to play the ball.

Not sure if VAR would have looked at that angle - MOTD2 implied he didn't but of course that means nothing!

 

[Degnann]

Is that the criteria to make it an offence?

Not necessarily but would make me think it impacts the keeper playing the ball rather than him being 5 yards away.

i will add I have only see this clip watching the game yesterday.

 

[bester]

Is that the criteria to make it an offence?

I think I've seen UEFA training material interpreting close proximitys as interfering with an opponent.
Wasn't supported by law at the time.

 

[PinnerPaul]

Here's the link to the behind the goal footage

'VAR is accountable' - should Lacazette's goal have stood?

Match of the Day 2 pundits Tim Cahill and Leon Osman question why VAR did not reverse Alexandre Lacazette's disallowed goal in Arsenal's 1-0 loss to Leicester City.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[RustyRef]

I think VAR have messed up here and it should have stood. From the view the assistant had it looked as though Xhaka was in front of Schmeichel, but from behind the goal it was clear he wasn't and actually moved to the left, so further away from the keeper.

 

[socal lurker]

Unlike OSP, as I understand it, to reverse a conclusion of OS here (which I presume was a obvious action in the way he moved while in front of the GK), I believe the VAR would have to conclude it was clear error to call the OS. I'm not convinced that standard was met. (I do think when an OSP player is that close to the GK, he doesn't get a lot of benefit of the doubt.) Since it is a judgment call, I believe an OFR would have been required to reverse. I don't think VAR was wrong to not recommend an OFR (regardless of which way the call on the field was made).

 

[santa sangria]

I think this is so easy to call offside.

 

[PinnerPaul]

I think VAR have messed up here and it should have stood. From the view the assistant had it looked as though Xhaka was in front of Schmeichel, but from behind the goal it was clear he wasn't and actually moved to the left, so further away from the keeper.

Do you think that VAR looked at that angle? Never know I suppose.

 

[Mr Dean]

I don't know why this is being referred to as a subjective decision; the criteria is objective:

After Lacazette touched the ball,
- Did Xhaka touch the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka prevent an opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the line of vision to the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka challenge an opponent for the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka attempt to play the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball? No (unless he distracted Schmeichel with very strong perfume but this isn't an obvious action).

To conclude, no offside offence was committed.

 

[GraemeS]

I don't know why this is being referred to as a subjective decision; the criteria is objective:

After Lacazette touched the ball,
- Did Xhaka touch the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka prevent an opponent from playing the ball by obstructing the line of vision to the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka challenge an opponent for the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka attempt to play the ball? No.
- Did Xhaka impact on an opponent's ability to play the ball? No (unless he distracted Schmeichel with very strong perfume but this isn't an obvious action).

To conclude, no offside offence was committed.

You've got a thread full of people who disagree with you on your last point - so at the very least, that is subjective. Trying to paint it as objective is disingenuous.