Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
What do we think?
Brighton vs Southampton
- Thread starter Runner Ref
- Start date
Runner Ref
Well-Known Member
That wasn’t the question
Offside for me. Armstrong clearly tried to play the ball, the keeper has to assume he might make contact and that for me makes it clearly interfering. Had he just kept running and not tried that flick to play the ball then I'd be saying goal.
The whole thing took far too long though, 4.5 minutes, and I again find myself challenging the logic of what was checked. Armstrong was clearly in an offside position, there was no doubt about that, whereas Archer was right on the line. They spent an age checking Archer's position before determining he was level, only then to go on to check Armstrong. Why not check the most obvious offside offence first? They know he was offside, it took them pretty much zero time to work out he had tried to play the ball, all done in a few seconds. The majority of the time was spent checking the position of Archer, which then became irrelevant because of what Armstrong did.
The whole thing took far too long though, 4.5 minutes, and I again find myself challenging the logic of what was checked. Armstrong was clearly in an offside position, there was no doubt about that, whereas Archer was right on the line. They spent an age checking Archer's position before determining he was level, only then to go on to check Armstrong. Why not check the most obvious offside offence first? They know he was offside, it took them pretty much zero time to work out he had tried to play the ball, all done in a few seconds. The majority of the time was spent checking the position of Archer, which then became irrelevant because of what Armstrong did.
bester
RefChat Addict
The goalkeeper is waiting until the ball passes the attacker, and the attempted flick constitutes an obvious action.
If he didn't make a flick at it then their would be no offside offence, and the goalkeeper would still have had to wait until the ball passed the attacker.
Daft law.
If he didn't make a flick at it then their would be no offside offence, and the goalkeeper would still have had to wait until the ball passed the attacker.
Daft law.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Offside. Armstrong is daft. The GK is clearly impacted. He looks at Armstrong.
The ”interference” might be negligible. It might seem technical. But it’s offside. And it shouldn’t have taken 5m to check. And was a subjective decision and would have presented much better with an OFR.
And IT WAS THE PLAYER’S FAULT they had a goal disallowed here. If that cost Saints relegation, it’s the player’s idiot action that is the reason.
The ”interference” might be negligible. It might seem technical. But it’s offside. And it shouldn’t have taken 5m to check. And was a subjective decision and would have presented much better with an OFR.
And IT WAS THE PLAYER’S FAULT they had a goal disallowed here. If that cost Saints relegation, it’s the player’s idiot action that is the reason.
there is a clear action to play the ball in the flick. Did it interfere with the goalkeeper? I think this is subjective. The goalkeeper does move both feet slightly as the attempted flick happens and therefore is technically repositioned and probably wouldn’t have been if that attempted flick hadn’t of happened. Not clear and obvious to overrule onfield decision of offside in my opinion.
Ofside law: 'clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent'
Maybe need another 'clearly', "clearly impacts an opponent", would this give enough leeway to award the goal?
Football is turning into a bit anti-goal, toenail offside etc, does the game want more goals?
Rugby uses a phrase, is there any reason why I should not award the try? Football tries to stay with the onfield decision when marginal.
Maybe need another 'clearly', "clearly impacts an opponent", would this give enough leeway to award the goal?
Football is turning into a bit anti-goal, toenail offside etc, does the game want more goals?
Rugby uses a phrase, is there any reason why I should not award the try? Football tries to stay with the onfield decision when marginal.
The LOTG pamphlet needs to add that 'attempting to touch/play' the ball or a 'feint' to play it is equivalent to touching/playing the ball and is therefore offside. In the absence of this, it's very unclear what is meant by 'impact' when impact is a measure of distraction
This type of controversy has happened numerous times before. Recall the Salah incident etc...
It needs better clarification
4m 30s is a blight on the game. Completely unacceptable
This type of controversy has happened numerous times before. Recall the Salah incident etc...
It needs better clarification
4m 30s is a blight on the game. Completely unacceptable
For me the PGMOL selected the wrong offside offence, I can understand 2c but I am struggling with 2d.
Armstrong didn't prevent Verbruggen playing the ball, he was never coming out to play the ball but he did have to stay more near post before retreating back to attempt to save the shot from Archer.
I still think regardless the keeper could only be a spectator here as the ball & finish were too good.
Am I misinterpreting?
x.com
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
1 interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
2 interfering with an opponent by:
a preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
b challenging an opponent for the ball or
c clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
d making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
www.skysports.com
From 2.08
Armstrong didn't prevent Verbruggen playing the ball, he was never coming out to play the ball but he did have to stay more near post before retreating back to attempt to save the shot from Archer.
I still think regardless the keeper could only be a spectator here as the ball & finish were too good.
Am I misinterpreting?
x.com
x.com
Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
1 interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
2 interfering with an opponent by:
a preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
b challenging an opponent for the ball or
c clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
d making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Brighton 1-1 Southampton | Premier League highlights
FREE TO WATCH: Highlights from Brighton’s match against Southampton in the Premier League.
From 2.08
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think that is the whole point of the difference in standards among blocking vision, a clear action, and an attempt to play the ball. On an attempt to play the ball, any impact on an opponent is enough to create the offense. I havn’t seen a clip, but as described, this doesn’t sound like a hard call—it’s an offside offense.
It takes a lack of historical understanding of OS to make that statement. This used to be so blatantly obviously OS that no one would even have a second thought. Over the last 20 years, what is enough to constitute active involvement and be an offense has been significantly whittled down to eliminate scenarios where the OSP player has no impact on the play. (The whittling actually goes back even farther to the elimination of “seeking to gain an advantage from Law 11, to making even I. Instead of off, and even farther back to moving from 3 defenders required to 2.) Anyone saying this scenario has no impact on the GK is being naive. Yes, the OSP attacker merely being there has an impact on how the GK plays as someone noted above. But we give that attacker a get out of jail free card despite that impact so long as he doesn’t try to do anything to affect the play. Once he attempts the ball, he loses that forgiveness and is properly sanctioned for being OS.
Am I missing something, you haven’t seen the clip but your view is it doesn't sound a hard call, offside?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
That would explain why I very clearly noted that my opinion was as described.Am I missing something, you haven’t seen the clip but your view is it doesn't sound a hard call, offside?
I’ve now seen it. I think the play really hinges to some degree on whether you view this as an attempt or not. If it is an obvious action rather than an attempt, I think the goal stands because this can’t meet the higher requirements for an obvious action.
I don’t think this is a hard call once you decide it is an attempt (which I think it is).
(Aside: some will remember that the “obvious action,” language, with its higher standard, came in after a play in which an attacker dummied the ball, freezing a defender while the ball went through to another attacker. The R gave OS. I think there was a consensus that was the right result in the spirit of the game, but it was not actually supportable by the Laws at the time.