The Ref Stop

Australia vs Peru

The Ref Stop
Big Cat said:
That's where the offside law becomes nonsensical. If the attacker wasn't interfering, why is the defender in such a desperate contorted body shape!? I don't think this second frame is relevant
Click to expand...
I think offside law became nonsensical when it determined that defenders should be punished for doing their job. Defender made a desperate lunge, not his fault he couldn't stop the ball, but his team is severely punished as a result.

Anyway, there's no interfering - the PIOP was behind the defender and not challenging. I'd argue the right decision was made.
 
cwyeary said:
For the 5000th time, there is no "don't flag if it's close" directive. There is a "delay the flag if it's close AND there is goal scoring opportunity".
Click to expand...
We know, but they're not exactly following the directives, or the directives are messing with their normal instincts, training and experience. We can't blame the AR for this one however. It's the sort of close call for which VAR is intended
 
Big Cat said:
We know, but they're not exactly following the directives, or the directives are messing with their normal instincts, training and experience. We can't blame the AR for this one however. It's the sort of close call for which VAR is intended
Click to expand...
The replay shows that the defender played the ball and the PIOP wasn't challenging. So, the offside is nullified. I think the law about that is completely stupid (always argued that), but it's been applied correctly. I don't even think there's a question over this one.

Of course, our idiot commentator is trying to talk about the 'gaining an advantage' clause

one said:
Thre is but they are not going to show it to us. There are 35 cameras one specific for offside.
Click to expand...
I was going on a more general rant. about how Aussie refs have changed with the VAR, not about AR's. Off topic really
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
I think offside law became nonsensical when it determined that defenders should be punished for doing their job. Defender made a desperate lunge, not his fault he couldn't stop the ball, but his team is severely punished as a result.

Anyway, there's no interfering - the PIOP was behind the defender and not challenging. I'd argue the right decision was made.
Click to expand...
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
 
one said:
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
Click to expand...
How are you arguing that happened here?

The attacker was behind the defender and running away. He hasn't made an action impacting on the defender at all. Defender making a choice to play the ball based on an attacker running to receive it isn't what that clause is intended for. Never was. FIFA were quite clear on that in previous years at least.
 
I think the book can be taken too literally at times. It's not written well enough to comprehend the level of detail being discussed
 
Big Cat said:
I think the book can be taken too literally at times. It's not written well enough to comprehend the level of detail being discussed
Click to expand...

It's not. That's why I'm comparing this to Futuro clips. I think interfering with an opponent can be supported, but I also don't think it's clear and obvious that he interfered with an opponent. Therefore the decision on the field stands.
 
Take the attacker out and see if the defender would have played the same. If yes then no impact, if no then impact.
 
Assistant shouldn't be delaying his flag in this situation, realistically there's only one player who can play the ball. You don't delay on the off chance a defender makes a deliberate play.
Most likely the assistant wasn't sure it was offside to start with. If he thought it was offside but kept it down due to it 'being tight' then the consequences of a subsequent deliberate play resetting offside is very troubling (although not unforeseen).

"What football expects" - Offside.
 
bester said:
"What football expects" - Offside.
Click to expand...
What football expects? What a copout.

Don't you mean what the fans who only watch 3 games every 4 years and who have never read the laws expect?

If we did 'what football expects', we wouldn't apply the stupid 'playing it nullifies offside' law at all.

one said:
Take the attacker out and see if the defender would have played the same. If yes then no impact, if no then impact.
Click to expand...
FIFA have specifically said that a defender making a decision because an attacker is there isn't interfering.

Influencing isn't interfering.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JH
cwyeary said:
But that's what you think the law should be and not what the law is.
Click to expand...
What do you think the law is? Clearly if it meant to say challenge, it would have been much easier to just say challenge. Running towards the ball and the defender who is about to play the ball is the action and it have clearly impacted him by rushing a touch rather than letting run.
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
FIFA have specifically said that a defender making a decision because an attacker is there isn't interfering.

Influencing isn't interfering.
Click to expand...
Different case her. Attacker wasn't just there. He was making an action. 'Impacting' is interfering.

cwyeary said:
It literally says "challenges an opponent for the ball".
Click to expand...
Read my quote again, it never says that. "Challenges" is a different clause and your interpretation makes this clause redundant.
 
Yeah. This is only going to turn into the Liverpool/Spurs thread again.

And apparently parts of law 11 aren't actually in law 11.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top