Bournemouth vs West Ham

[AlexF]

Also remeber buzzers are not compulsary and even when used they are merely an aide, not to be relied on, but as extra help. The only way to signal communication to the referee here is to actually go and have the chat.

As far as I can tell this comes down to referees preference. Some referees ask for a flag and some ask to not give a flag.
Would be interesting tk see if there is a directive given here.

Having said that, the direction from "on high" (read: FIFA) for the last 6-7 years (at least) has been for the AR to "statue" on/near the goal line when a ball has entered the goal and the AR isn't certain if there's been an offence (read: needs more information). If the goal is (as best the AR can tell) scored legally, then the AR simply runs up the touchline to indicate such. Otherwise, that's a signal to the referee that something's potentially wrong with the situation.

Again, this direction SEEMS to be changing (I'm still waiting for confirmation from my higher level instructors on this) to it no longer being JUST a statue, but a raised flag.

Note: Ciley: I have NO idea why you're bringing buzz/beep flags into this, since the signal requires no use of the buzz/beep flag either way.

 

[es1]

Having said that, the direction from "on high" (read: FIFA) for the last 6-7 years (at least) has been for the AR to "statue" on/near the goal line when a ball has entered the goal and the AR isn't certain if there's been an offence (read: needs more information). If the goal is (as best the AR can tell) scored legally, then the AR simply runs up the touchline to indicate such. Otherwise, that's a signal to the referee that something's potentially wrong with the situation.

Again, this direction SEEMS to be changing (I'm still waiting for confirmation from my higher level instructors on this) to it no longer being JUST a statue, but a raised flag.

Note: Ciley: I have NO idea why you're bringing buzz/beep flags into this, since the signal requires no use of the buzz/beep flag either way.

The buzzers were prompted by my post, I imagine. While you're right @Ciley Myrus, buzzers aren't used in every game, I've done 2 games in 4 years at level 4 where the ref didn't have them.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Someone before me said their protocol was to keep flag down and buzz. I was pasing comment on their post. The only reason I made refernce to buzzers was because of this. Maybe ask the person before me why they are bringing buzzers into this. To buzz, it would be handy to be using buzzers in the first place

If you mean me, i have already stated the correct method is to raise flag and get referee over, as per yesterday.

It would be adult of you to remove or edit your capital letter emphasis, as if its intended to make me look foolish, it has back fired as its yourself who is unaware of prev posts, as confirmed by the poster of thus.

 

[AlexF]

If you mean me, i have already stated the correct method is to raise flag and get referee over, as per yesterday.

And yet, the correct method (barring change having come down from the FIFA/IFAB levels) was NOT that. On a normal situation, yes, sure. Raise the flag. On a goal/no-goal situation where the AR has information for the referee, the AR has been (for at least 6-7 years as per FIFA direction) directed to stand still on/beside the goal line. This is an indication to the referee that something might not be right with that goal. This is the direction from FIFA/IFAB that may be changing.

In the situation where there's a quick "in/out" on what appears to be a legal goal, the direction has been to (AR on the goal line) raise the flag, on a whistle from the referee to stop play, run up the goal line in the normal "this is a goal" signal by the AR.

It would be adult of you to remove or edit your capital letter emphasis, as if its intended to make me look foolish, it has back fired as its yourself who is unaware of prev posts, as confirmed by the poster of thus.

You referenced them in direct response to my comments which made 0 mention of buzz/beep flags, so no, I was asking you why you felt the need to bring them up in response to MY comment. To be honest, I'm still not sure, despite having read through this whole discussion before I even responded.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Your comment did not inspire my buzzer flags comments, the other posters did

Someone clearly said they were under impression to keep flag down and buzz

My own comments re this are no, flag UP is the method of communication

 

[PinnerPaul]

I agree with a red card here. There's no way that's not endangering the safety of an opponent.

Here though, the AR is clearly indicating that he doesn't know if there's been an offside offence or not. He puts the flag straight up in the air and holds it there, not indicating the position of the (potential) offence and waits for the referee to come over so they can discuss it. As far as I can tell, the debate would have been over whether the OPP touched the ball or not and they decided between them that he didn't. There's no way of knowing, unless they come out and tell us (which they won't or apparently aren't allowed to do) who had the final say. The replays I've seen would seem to show they got it wrong and there was a very slight touch off the Bournemouth player.

Even so he's 'challenging for the ball' and certainly 'close enough' to both ball and opponent (GK) to influence GK so for me - touch or not, that's offside.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

I'm sure in hindsight, and with the multiple views we've now seen Madley would change his ruling. Its very easy to pontificate on here with the Law passages and with that information to hand, far harder to do it in front of a large crowd and the pressure to give a quick decision weighing heavily!
I'm sure we've all fecked up, I have for sure, your probably lying if you don't want to admit it!!

 

[PinnerPaul]

I'm sure in hindsight, and with the multiple views we've now seen Madley would change his ruling. Its very easy to pontificate on here with the Law passages and with that information to hand, far harder to do it in front of a large crowd and the pressure to give a quick decision weighing heavily!
I'm sure we've all fecked up, I have for sure, your probably lying if you don't want to admit it!!

Don't think anyone has implied it was 'easy'. Sure we all appreciate there is nothing 'easy' about refereeing - at any level.

As for the pontification, isn't that what we are here for?!

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Don't think anyone has implied it was 'easy'. Sure we all appreciate there is nothing 'easy' about refereeing - at any level.

As for the pontification, isn't that what we are here for?!

No, I said it was easy to pontificate!!!! There has been quite a lot of polemical threads recently!

 

[frank_ref]

1. There appears to be an assumption that Wilson was clearly offside. Freeze frame video shows this isn't necessarily the case. Or was certainly close enough to not have been seen:



2. LoTG page 180 says what to do in a goal/no goal situation:

When a goal has been scored and there is no doubt about the decision, the referee and assistant referee must make eye contact and the assistant referee must then move quickly 25–30 metres along the touchline towards the halfway line without raising the flag.

When a goal has been scored but the ball appears still to be in play, the assistant referee must first raise the flag to attract the referee’s attention then continue with the normal goal procedure of running quickly 25–30 metres along the touchline towards the halfway line.

On occasions when the whole of the ball does not cross the goal line and play continues as normal because a goal has not been scored, the referee must make eye contact with the assistant referee and if necessary give a discreet hand signal.

I've always believed in the event of a dubious goal the AR stays where he is, keeps his flag lowered, and makes eye contact with the ref. Remaining in position is signal enough that the ref needs to have a word. Though buzzers if available would obviously be used. Can't seem to find that in the book right now though.

3. When the AR raises his flag is he doing that because he thinks it's offside? Or because he wants a word with the ref?

4. I'm not sure it's clear what the conversation is about. Is the AR suggesting that Wilson was offside and asking Madley if he thought he interfered with play, as he wasn't sure he had? Is the AR suggesting that Wilson was offside and asking Madley if he saw him get a touch on the ball, because he wasn't sure he had? Or is he asking if Madley had seen a handball?

(Presumably the first two are possile, though not the latter - if Madley had seen a handball he would have given it himself.)

5. All in all, I think the right decision was made. If Wilson was offside, it was a matter of a centimetre or so of the toe of one boot. I don't think he impacted on the goalkeeper's ability to get the ball. And though there was a very slight glance off his arm, it: a) wasn't deliberate; and b) didn't divert the ball into the net, as that's where it was going anyway.

6. The only things I see wrong with the refs' actions were: 1. Madley took over 40 seconds from the scoring of the goal to get around to talking with his AR; 2. He made it very easy for lipreaders to work out what he was saying; 3. He had no control over the players or the situation (and employed some rather amusing and ineffectual whistle blowing, for no apparent reason); 4. Probably the AR would have been better off simply standing his ground rather than raising his flag. It's ambiguous, confusing, unnecessary, and escalates the situation from "I want a word before you give the goal" to "I think there's been an offence."

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Point 5 is a bit bizarre in an otherwise reasonable summary. If he is offside then he is offside. My picture to me is more than enough to say he challenged or and had an impact on proceedings. Unless of course the definitive answer is, he was not offside. I am still from the pic in your post, saying offside is the correct calll. The gk cant make a save due to his presence! Their legs are touching. If thats not close enough to influence play then maybe only actually making babies is closer

To say it was going in anyway, puts even more onus for me on the striker to stay clear, as any impact could, or should result in him being considered impacting, or whatever this seasons buzz word is.p

The flag is to be raised to attract the referees attention, thats standard practise, indeed you could say that everytime the flag is raised, its for that purpose, to get the attention of the referee, in this case to inform him that the AR would like to clarify something. As your first line says if a goal is good no raised flag...the opposite applies when as AR you are not clear or satisfied with the goal.

Madley will have been talking on comms before talking face to face with AR. These situations are near impossible to pass without things that could have been done different or better. Its the last kick of the ball for a draw in a top league relegation battle. Human nature sometimes overtakes our ideal refereeing behaviours.

Offside for me, Dermott Gallagher made a good summary of it on Sky this afternoon, there was too much " going on" to be able to award a legitimate goal

 

[Padfoot]

Point 5 is a bit bizarre in an otherwise reasonable summary. If he is offside then he is offside. My picture to me is more than enough to say he challenged or and had an impact on proceedings. Unless of course the definitive answer is, he was not offside. I am still from the pic in your post, saying offside is the correct calll. The gk cant make a save due to his presence! Their legs are touching. If thats not close enough to influence play then maybe only actually making babies is closer

To say it was going in anyway, puts even more onus for me on the striker to stay clear, as any impact could, or should result in him being considered impacting, or whatever this seasons buzz word is.p

The flag is to be raised to attract the referees attention, thats standard practise, indeed you could say that everytime the flag is raised, its for that purpose, to get the attention of the referee, in this case to inform him that the AR would like to clarify something. As your first line says if a goal is good no raised flag...the opposite applies when as AR you are not clear or satisfied with the goal.

Madley will have been talking on comms before talking face to face with AR. These situations are near impossible to pass without things that could have been done different or better. Its the last kick of the ball for a draw in a top league relegation battle. Human nature sometimes overtakes our ideal refereeing behaviours.

Offside for me, Dermott Gallagher made a good summary of it on Sky this afternoon, there was too much " going on" to be able to award a legitimate goal

The FACT is that the AR clearly judged Wilson to be in an offside position, hence the flag being raised....the discussion between ref and AR then appears to focus on whether Wilson touched the ball.....however, both officials would have had a good view of his position in relation to interfering with the GK.....yet neither one picks up on it. That is poor.

 

[frank_ref]

Point 5 is a bit bizarre

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.

If he is offside then he is offside.

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



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?)

My picture to me is more than enough to say he challenged and/or had an impact on proceedings.

How about when you watch the video?

The flag is to be raised to attract the referee's attention, that's standard practise.

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

Madley will have been talking on comms before talking face to face with AR.

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

Dermott Gallagher made a good summary of it on Sky this afternoon: there was "too much going on" to be able to award a legitimate goal.

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.

 

[AlexF]

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.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

For me, its offside

Its going to take a lot of if what why maybe etc to sell if to anyone as a goal

My old prematch contained....if it looks like offside, seems like offside and smells like offside, then its probably offside. This stinks of offside for me

 

[frank_ref]

I don't think anyone's debating that Wilson was in an offside position (now).

PS How do you "smell" offside?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Its a scent, an appreciation for whats going on around you

Smelling this offside would have brought the correct outcome, maybe you should try a whiff

 

[santa sangria]

What I learn from this is that they should not change the directive and make us put the flag up if you need to talk to the ref at a goal/no goal situation - because it looks like you are flagging offside. Much better to to stand as per existing guidelines.

In this case I would give the third team more credit. My guess is they discussed touching the ball and interfering with the GK and decided neither.

The point about how close the offside call was - for me that centimetre looks enough like "level" that if an AR decides that's level in real time I don't think a VAR could or should class that as a clear and obvious mistake.

My own opinion is that this was interfering with the GK by challenging for the ball from an offside position and, even without the touch, should have been offside. But, I am also happy with the decision to award the goal in real time.

 

[RefJef]

Its a scent, an appreciation for whats going on around you

Smelling this offside would have brought the correct outcome, maybe you should try a whiff

I can certainly smell something ...

Cat? Dog? Elephant? No, I’ve got it, Bull s....

 

[Ciley Myrus]

I can certainly smell something ...

Cat? Dog? Elephant? No, I’ve got it, Bull s....

Look forward to seeing your stand up routine at next years Royal Variety