Carabao Final - CHE V LIV

[RefereeX]

I'm not a huge fan of "before any of us were born, the law used to be X and so we're keeping it that way" as a reason.

Sure, that's valid for understanding how it's evolved to this point, but that doesn't mean this point is sensible in and of itself. It's perfectly reasonable to look at the fact that we've found ourself in a position where blocking is fine as long as it isn't offside (at which point it becomes a "disallow goals" level of impact on a game) and query if that's really a sensible outcome?

And your last assertion is pure guesswork - he could easily have made that same block from an onside position (or at least a borderline position rather than 2 yards offside), it's at least as likely that he just switched off to the possibility of offside position at the key moment of the FK.

No I appreciate what you're saying in the top half, but why stand in an offside position intentionally and then moan about being given offside?

In my opinion, what makes the most sense for football reasons is that if a player is offside as a result of not having made it back onside after a previous attack and an attack has nothing to do with him, then the goal should be allowed. But this isn't a case of that, this is a case of a player deliberately taking up an offside position at a restart. Whether his intention was to be back onside by the time the ball was played or not, he felt like standing in that position was advantageous at the time he was stood there. For that reason alone for me, if he doesn't make it back onside then it is correct for the game that it's an offside offence.

(I assume I'm correct that we're not discussing law here, just our opinion of what is right for the game?)

Not strictly true as I understand.

@Peter Grove will be along shortly to put us right on the history of offside but pretty sure from past comments on here that there has always been an element of having to be involved in active play for offside to be committed.

You're probably correct, but I'm sure I remember the whole active play thing becoming more of a thing and Neil Warnock ranting about it.

 

[santa sangria]

1873
obvious action that impacts the opponents ability to the play the ball

I have Virgil shirt upstairs. Endo was rightfully deemed to have committed an offence. And great to hear the inside comms story.

 

[RefereeX]

1873
obvious action that impacts the opponents ability to the play the ball

I have Virgil shirt upstairs. Endo was rightfully deemed to have committed an offence. And great to hear the inside comms story.

I'd be surprised if it doesn't crop up again in the next 'mic'd up' with Howard Webb.

 

[GraemeS]

No I appreciate what you're saying in the top half, but why stand in an offside position intentionally and then moan about being given offside?

In my opinion, what makes the most sense for football reasons is that if a player is offside as a result of not having made it back onside after a previous attack and an attack has nothing to do with him, then the goal should be allowed. But this isn't a case of that, this is a case of a player deliberately taking up an offside position at a restart. Whether his intention was to be back onside by the time the ball was played or not, he felt like standing in that position was advantageous at the time he was stood there. For that reason alone for me, if he doesn't make it back onside then it is correct for the game that it's an offside offence.

(I assume I'm correct that we're not discussing law here, just our opinion of what is right for the game?)



You're probably correct, but I'm sure I remember the whole active play thing becoming more of a thing and Neil Warnock ranting about it.

It's hard not to bring up the old Shankly quote: "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be."

If we're just saying that he must have gone offside for a reason, so ping him, I think we're a little too far away from current expectations around involvement. And on a more general point, if we're just assuming going offside is done for a reason, I think that's a logical leap that isn't currently expected.

In this specific Endo case, yes he goes offside and yes he makes a block. I'm just not convinced those two things have much to do with each other other than coincidence. And that's why a lawbook that focuses on those two things only, and doesn't otherwise care about off-the-ball blocking seems to be missing something for me.

 

[JamesL]

It's hard not to bring up the old Shankly quote: "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be."

If we're just saying that he must have gone offside for a reason, so ping him, I think we're a little too far away from current expectations around involvement. And on a more general point, if we're just assuming going offside is done for a reason, I think that's a logical leap that isn't currently expected.

In this specific Endo case, yes he goes offside and yes he makes a block. I'm just not convinced those two things have much to do with each other other than coincidence. And that's why a lawbook that focuses on those two things only, and doesn't otherwise care about off-the-ball blocking seems to be missing something for me.

Off the ball blocking is considered in law 12 "impeding progress of opponent with contact" read definition of impeding progress without contact and apply contact.

So the law does care. Just the threshold for a foul Vs technical offence is different.

You can be in an offside position, you then can't interfere with an opponent by affecting their ability to play the ball by being in that position.

For law 11 the offence is being in the way when you're coming from offside position.

For law 12 to be interested you have to move in the way of opponent.

If law 12 happens strictly applied we should always take the foul (we know that necessarily isnt always applied in practise).

Of law 12 doesn't happen then we're at the slightly lower threshold for technical offence of offside.

 

[bester]

Pedants corner

The relevant law 12 offence is 'impedes with contact'

If you're saying 'impeding with contact' that would suggest to me that the criteria for 'impeding without contact' was met and then there was contact.

Relevant because if the player just stands there he can't be 'impeding without contact'

 

[JamesL]

Pedantry corner

The relevant law 12 offence is 'impedes with contact'

If you're saying 'impeding with contact' that would suggest to me that the criteria for 'impeding without contact' was met and then there was contact.

Relevant because if the player just stands there he can't be 'impeding without contact'

Pedantry accepted but it is actually "impede progress of an opponent without contact" and "impedes opponent with contact"

That said when you look at the definition of impede "To delay, block or prevent an opponent’s action or movement" then to me they are one of the same issue. I think poor drafting in that impeded progress... Was there pre 2016 rewrite and I am sure impedes opponent was there but they added with contact in the 2016 rewrite.

So, I think, we are making a similar point. Impeding requires that the player move into the path of the opponent to be guilty of impeding, whereas if they are just standing there they are not guilty of impeding i.e. no law 12 offence BUT this does not apply to law 11 as by being in the offside position AND interfering with opponent by an obvious action that clearly impacts ability of opponent to play the ball then that's a law 11 matter.

 

[RefereeX]

Interestingly, there were a few there last night who thought the goal should have been disallowed for a blocking offence under law 12, and James said he wouldn't say that those people were wrong, but in their eyes it wasn't quite enough to meet that threshold.

 

[GraemeS]

OK, but that's all kind of supporting my point. There are two different offences with two different thresholds, requiring the officials to make two different judgements calls. Determining which judgement you need to make requires your AR to note an offside position and communicate that to you, but without flagging for an offside offence because they can't judge that part of it. And I doubt any of us can really define outside of "gut feeling" which of the dozens of bits of contact qualify for which threshold. James makes a fair point about law 12 requiring moving into the way of opponents - but that's also known as "man marking" and we don't routinely penalise that, so....?

And that's before we even get into the fact that we're also obviously expected to know that the threshold goes up again if you're talking about defensive law 12 blocking that would result in a penalty. It's super messy, and I think deciding if we're really happy with this weird quirk in offside would be a fairly obvious place to start when it come to tidying it up.

 

[socal lurker]

Not strictly true as I understand.

@Peter Grove will be along shortly to put us right on the history of offside but pretty sure from past comments on here that there has always been an element of having to be involved in active play for offside to be committed.

Yes, but the threshold was much, much lower in decades past. I believe it was in the 80s that “seeking to gain an advantage” was replaced with gaining an advantage—which was a big change. Prior to that, almost any movement toward the attacking play could result in OS. (Which is why the Laws kept language about stepping off the field to prove you weren’t involved for a long time, and why in old footage you will see players raise their arm and turn their back on the play to prove they aren’t seeking to gain an advantage.)

 

[wazztie16]

Interesting. Last night at one of the training roadshows James Mainwaring was there and he talked us through the decision making process. He said that he had mentioned to Mark Scholes at half time that they often had players stood in offside positions at attacking free kicks that then acted as blockers. Over the comms they knew that Enzo had blocked (whoever it was) and this could be an offside offence as the dropping zone was in playing distance, but due to the emergence of Gakpo being offside from Van Dijk's header and potentially in the line of vision of the goalkeeper (although he obviously wasn't, but that was a consideration) Scholes' concentration switched on to that potential issue and he wasn't certain whether Enzo was the man offside initially. This is why VAR then looked in to it, because they had picked up on their comms discussions. So effectively, Kavanagh really did go over to the screen just to sell the decision, as they already knew that if Enzo was offside from the free kick, they would be disallowing it.

That's the general gist of what he was saying I think, although don't take it as gospel, I'm not a great re-teller of stories

I would've seen you last night as I was at Warwick as well. I got involved in some of the discussions, and actually found the event quite useful. Especially regarding looking at who initiated contact on fouls.

Don't want to drag this off topic though

 

[RustyRef]

I still don't see why this was in any way controversial. What is stoking the fire is supposed experts like Keith Hackett going public and making a total mess of the laws. He should already have no credibility given how he waddled around the pitch making a mess of most games he refereed (I am old enough to comment ), and having a far from successful role as head of PGMOL, but any remaining credibility should disappear here.

His argument is that Endo has a right to stand there, he doesn't have to get out of the way. I would totally agree with that if he had been penalised for a foul, but he wasn't, he was penalised for an offside offence. Was he in an offside position, yes? Did he interfere with an opponent, yes clearly as he blocked him off. Whether he was obliged to move out of the way or not is neither here nor there.

 

[RefereeX]

I would've seen you last night as I was at Warwick as well. I got involved in some of the discussions, and actually found the event quite useful. Especially regarding looking at who initiated contact on fouls.

Don't want to drag this off topic though

I'm great at dragging things off topic. I stayed relatively quiet on Wednesday though! A lot of our content for level 3s was the same as the stuff we did on our mid-season promotion induction day, but a refresher never hurts!

 

[GraemeS]

I still don't see why this was in any way controversial. What is stoking the fire is supposed experts like Keith Hackett going public and making a total mess of the laws. He should already have no credibility given how he waddled around the pitch making a mess of most games he refereed (I am old enough to comment ), and having a far from successful role as head of PGMOL, but any remaining credibility should disappear here.

His argument is that Endo has a right to stand there, he doesn't have to get out of the way. I would totally agree with that if he had been penalised for a foul, but he wasn't, he was penalised for an offside offence. Was he in an offside position, yes? Did he interfere with an opponent, yes clearly as he blocked him off. Whether he was obliged to move out of the way or not is neither here nor there.

No one (anywhere on this thread certainly) has supported Hackett's stance. A post purely refuting his argument and using that to dismiss the whole thread without bothering to read enough to work out that we've moved on to discussing the spirit and the point of the law is jut a strawman argument.

 

[santa sangria]

Obviously the new context for this is ManU’s winner which seemed to have a carbon copy but was allowed as the offside player blocked and pushed an opponent in the centre but the ball was headed in at the near post.

Goal allowed as the defender could not have played the ball… but… we were looking at various offside clips in a training session this week… in midfield, if an offside player makes any contact with an opponent it’s an easy offence to give even a long way from the ball. At least I think ManU were smart here and the law should catch up.

 

[GraemeS]

Exactly. Under current law, I understand the reasoning for disallowing the LIV goal in principal. I just think it's a) pretty inconsistent with how much of this happens in general (see Man U for an almost immediate example) and b) weird, confusing and unnecessary that there's a different threshold for offside blocking vs law 12 blocking.

 

[RefereeX]

Exactly. Under current law, I understand the reasoning for disallowing the LIV goal in principal. I just think it's a) pretty inconsistent with how much of this happens in general (see Man U for an almost immediate example) and b) weird, confusing and unnecessary that there's a different threshold for offside blocking vs law 12 blocking.

Fully understand what you're saying, but he's challenging a defender he's not entitled to challenge because he was in an offside position when the ball was kicked.
The main point of offside is still that you shouldn't be there. He was, so he can't challenge a defender or affect that defenders ability to challenge. I don't find that weird.

 

[Martiju]

Fully understand what you're saying, but he's challenging a defender he's not entitled to challenge because he was in an offside position when the ball was kicked.
The main point of offside is still that you shouldn't be there. He was, so he can't challenge a defender or affect that defenders ability to challenge. I don't find that weird.

Completely agree (and as a long-standing Liverpool fan too). To cover an earlier point, I imagine he's standing offside because that gives him space away from other players (from both teams) to carry out the move he's trying to do or, if it concerns the defenders enough, it encourages them to drop back a step or two to mark him, thereby getting the attackers closer to the goal.

 

[RustyRef]

No one (anywhere on this thread certainly) has supported Hackett's stance. A post purely refuting his argument and using that to dismiss the whole thread without bothering to read enough to work out that we've moved on to discussing the spirit and the point of the law is jut a strawman argument.

I didn't say they had, just pointing out that comments from the likes of Hackett make it all that much more difficult for referees at all levels.

 

[Peter Grove]

Not strictly true as I understand.

@Peter Grove will be along shortly to put us right on the history of offside but pretty sure from past comments on here that there has always been an element of having to be involved in active play for offside to be committed.

You are right. I won't post my whole "offside screed" as I've done that so many times already but suffice it to say that there has never been a time in the history of the game, when the laws said that it was an offside offence simply to be in an offside position.

But what I would also say is that throughout that same history it seems that there has always been a bit of a tendency from referees to call it that way, based on the number of times that the laws governing bodies (first the FA then later the IFAB) have found it necessary to issue reminders to referees not to penalise offside-positioned players unless they were actually involved in active play (although they used different forms of wording in the past).