A&H

Bournemouth vs West Ham

AlexF said:
A better view of the GK and attacking player's interaction. The GK is at full stretch (this is the moment the ball is going past him) and not reaching the ball, and there's still some significant space between him and the attacking player at this point in time.

If, as was noted above, the AR saw that the player was in offside position, he's asking the referee two questions:
  1. Did the PIOP touch the ball? If so, then it's an offside (interfering with play), if not, onto question two:
  2. Did the PIOP interfere with the opponent or have an impact? If so, then it's an offside (interfering with the opponent), if not, then good goal.
It would appear that neither saw the touch (I saw it for the first time on the final replay, where this screenshot came from). As such, we go to question 2, and the referee obviously felt that there was no impact on or interference with the GK in this situation, and I would be inclined to agree with that decision.

View attachment 1620
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think this is a good way of thinking about it. For me, it's offside because of the touch. But if we assume neither the ref or the AR were confident they was a touch on the ball, I agree with them that there's not enough interference there to call it offside for that reason - but that's very much a judgement call.
 
The Referee Store
GraemeS said:
Yeah, I think this is a good way of thinking about it. For me, it's offside because of the touch. But if we assume neither the ref or the AR were confident they was a touch on the ball, I agree with them that there's not enough interference there to call it offside for that reason - but that's very much a judgement call.
Click to expand...

It's textbook interference.

Worrying that any referee fails to see that....downright scary that supposedly elite level officials get it wrong.
 
Sheffields Finest said:
No, I said it was easy to pontificate!!!! There has been quite a lot of polemical threads recently! :bag:
Click to expand...

Polemical synonyms: critical · hostile · bitter · polemic · virulent · vitriolic · venomous · waspish · corrosive · biting · caustic · trenchant · cutting · acerbic · sardonic · sarcastic · [More]scathing · acid · sharp · keen · tart · pungent · stinging · astringent · incisive · devastating · piercing · acidulous · mordacious

Bilmey!;):p
 
frank_ref said:
I should point out that by "right decision" I probably meant "in the grand scheme of things" - ie, given the tiny scale of any possible offence, it was probably right that the goal stood - rather than "right in law, after studying various angles in slow motion". Whether it was "right in law" is more debatable and down to personal opinion.

That's true, and the still on MoTD seems to show that he was:

View attachment 1621

But the question is if that's what the AR is raising the flag for (if so, why not then lower it to horizontal to indicate the position of the offence?)

How about when you watch the video?

Can you show this in the LoTG, with regard to a "goal/no goal situation"?

Doesn't appear to be the case in the video. Certainly not much.

Can we disallow goals for that reason? Don't we need something more specific?

Cogent argument though. Seems like you're saying the AR flagged for offside and was asking Madley if he thought Wilson interfered with play. Madley thought "no" while you think "yes" and therefore "no goal". One of those that could have gone either way depending on the ref.
Click to expand...

With you up until the last sentence - doesn't depend on referee. That implies its an opinion. Here AR and ref clearly missed the touch(es) by the offside player - that's not interpretation - that's a fact that they have missed - understandable as they were slight. What Mr G is saying is that why it is not easy to spot that player had either touched/handled the ball and/or interfered with the GK - there should have been enough evidence at first viewing between them to decide that one or other had taken place - so the % call was 'no goal'.
 
PinnerPaul said:
With you up until the last sentence - doesn't depend on referee. That implies its an opinion. Here AR and ref clearly missed the touch(es) by the offside player - that's not interpretation - that's a fact that they have missed.
Click to expand...
The last sentence refers to interference though, not the touch.

You're right, of course, that whether or not there was a touch isn't interpretation, but whether they've seen it.

Are we 100% sure yet that the AR raised the flag for offside?
 
frank_ref said:
The last sentence refers to interference though, not the touch.

You're right, of course, that whether or not there was a touch isn't interpretation, but whether they've seen it.

Are we 100% sure yet that the AR raised the flag for offside?
Click to expand...

No we're not.

Someone else raised that excellent point. IF raised for a 'possible' handball and NOT offside (which was incredibly close) then the goal decision is more understandable IMHO.
 
PinnerPaul said:
No we're not.

Someone else raised that excellent point. IF raised for a 'possible' handball and NOT offside (which was incredibly close) then the goal decision is more understandable IMHO.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't raise your flag straight in the air for a possible handball, that signal can only be for offside.
 
RustyRef said:
You wouldn't raise your flag straight in the air for a possible handball, that signal can only be for offside.
Click to expand...
It depends on the directive coming from the top levels of the game.

The directive used to be (for a situation like this) for the AR to stand there, giving NO signal at all. That would indicate to the referee that there may be an issue.

The directive may have changed to raise the flag (in the same manner of "I need to talk to you Mr. Referee" that is seen elsewhere on the FOP. If so, then yes, the correct thing to do here, whether possible handling, possible offside offence, or something else, is to stand still and raise the flag straight up for a conversation.
 
I have never heard, been told of, or seen this, Stand still with flag down thing

Either I have spent near 30 years in ignorance of this of everybody I have ever worked with has. Which I doubt
 
Ciley Myrus said:
I have never heard, been told of, or seen this, Stand still with flag down thing

Either I have spent near 30 years in ignorance of this of everybody I have ever worked with has. Which I doubt
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, that's all I've ever been told!
 
In England I dont think there is any set directives. I think its preference of the referee. I've had refs ask for a flag and have had other refs ask for no flag at pre match.
 
I have been taught to stand still with the flag down if not sure about an offence/goal/no goal.

The only time this happened to me was when the GK dived to the far post to smother a low shot and the ball ricoched between post and GK, with his body stopping me from seeing if the ball was over the line or not. There were furious appeals. The scenario was not helped by a spare ball, that I could see, being just outside the goal by the post.
 
The only time I can remember being given any specific instructions on this subject, I was told to wave the flag to get the ref's attention, and then once he'd noticed, drop the flag and take a single step onto the pitch to indicate I wanted to talk, rather than indicating a direction which would suggest a decision. But I agree with @JamesL , I don't think I've been consistently taught what to do in this situation.
 
santa sangria said:
I have been taught to stand still with the flag down if not sure about an offence/goal/no goal.

The only time this happened to me was when the GK dived to the far post to smother a low shot and the ball ricoched between post and GK, with his body stopping me from seeing if the ball was over the line or not. There were furious appeals. The scenario was not helped by a spare ball, that I could see, being just outside the goal by the post.
Click to expand...


Am lost. If that happened, then the ball is in play, as good as on the goal line, so no goal has been scored thus no signal is needed
 
Ciley Myrus said:
The flag is to be raised to attract the referees attention
Click to expand...

I agree with you here @Ciley Myrus but I would also add that - at this level and with buzzers being common place - the flag being raised is also used to indicate to players _and_ spectators that there might be an issue. Both are a group of people who would not necessarily understand the intricacies of the LotG and instructions to AR to remain on the goal line and not run back in to position.

Sometimes I think we, as a group (i.e. referees), forget about the wider communication issues, e.g. making it clear to all why we have blown the whistle (push, trip, hand etc).

Oh, and red card for the boot, and the correct decision made with the information available to the third-team at the time (VAR @Padfoot ?)
 
Ciley Myrus said:
Am lost. If that happened, then the ball is in play, as good as on the goal line, so no goal has been scored thus no signal is needed
Click to expand...
True. The example I gave is not close to the topic in retrospect - and it is just play on;) Let me rephrase - and say that's the closest I have come!
Still stands though that I have been taught to stand with no signal if the ball is IN the net and I need guidance from the ref...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top