The Ref Stop

City vs Liverpool

Donate to RefChat

Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Ref Stop
RefereeX said:
You’re saying you genuinely don’t see a difference between the 2?
Look my opinion is that on balance, this goal should stand, but I don’t see how that video is relevant in the argument. There are some very clear key differences (the most obvious of which is path of the ball in to the goal, over the top of Robertson in yesterdays case compared to the goalkeepers side of the offside attacker in the Man City vs Wolves game.
Click to expand...
The player is right in front of the keeper. Arguably making more of an impact on the keeper.
 
Ori said:
The player is right in front of the keeper. Arguably making more of an impact on the keeper.
Click to expand...
He absolutely wasn’t, but ok then…
He was in front of the keeper when the corner was taken, but that wasn’t when the offside is taken from, it’s taken from the header onwards, by which time he had moved to the side.
 
RefereeX said:
You’re saying you genuinely don’t see a difference between the 2?
Look my opinion is that on balance, this goal should stand, but I don’t see how that video is relevant in the argument. There are some very clear key differences (the most obvious of which is path of the ball in to the goal, over the top of Robertson in yesterdays case compared to the goalkeepers side of the offside attacker in the Man City vs Wolves game.
Click to expand...
No 2 incidents will never be exactly the same, but they aren’t going to get much closer than these 2, so of course it’s relevant.
 
Was entirely unsurprised to see this called offside by the on-field officials and once that has happened, no way that VAR will get involved. If a player in an offside position has to jump over or duck under a ball heading goalwards, then it's highly likely to be seen as an offence.

For clarity ... no, it wasn't a "line of vision" offence, no he didn't "attempt to play the ball". But he most definitely made an obvious action and so the only judgement to be made is whether this action "clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball". Whilst I agree with the points made around the "clearly" piece of this, the reality is that the goalkeeper came close to saving the header .. even a momentary, tenth of a second delay in his dive (caused by uncertainty over whether the ball would hit Robertson) could have easily made all the difference.

Similarly to the Everton goal recently disallowed against Tottenham, if an attacker (or two!) is standing in a clear offside position in the goal area at the scoring of a "goal" they shouldn't be overly surprised to be judged as having impacted the goalkeeper.
 
Ori said:
It’s the inconsistency that always angers people.
Click to expand...
Runner Ref said:
No 2 incidents will never be exactly the same
Click to expand...
This is why people will never get the 'consistency' they dream of.

Runner Ref said:
they aren’t going to get much closer than these 2, so of course it’s relevant.
Click to expand...

Agree, they're very similar, but as I said, the key difference is the fact the ball goes directly over Robertson where as Silva (?) has moved to the side by the time of the header and the header went almost straight above the keeper.
 
@Russell Jones This is my issue with this, if he's just standing there was is no offence unless the ball hits him.

There is no way the law intends ducking out of the way to be the obvious action that triggers an offside offence.
Wait a few weeks then contact IFAB.
 
Ori said:
I would agree with you, but again it’s inconsistency. Last season I remember a goal being allowed where the attacker was clearly blocking the goal keepers vision.

In this case, I could argue that the attacker made no difference to the keeper.
Click to expand...
There are very many situations when although appearing similar they are not like for like, so not uncommon for different outcomes. In any event, as Jimmy Hill said very many years ago can only expect Referees to be consistent within the game they are currently engaged in. If we were to go on consistency across the board, then there have been thousands of inconsistent decisions made eg foul challenges penalty kicks, cautions, sendings off etc. Runner Ref highlighted quite correctly that the incident in the Wolves and Man City games with different outcomes were from the same Referee. However, what is the possibility that following the Wolves game he reflected upon it, discussed it with colleagues and even HW and may have thought that perhaps he should have disallowed for offside & therefore, when a similar situation came again, that’s what he did.
 
Last edited:
bloovee said:
On another topic, when a penalty is awarded after a VAR review, why does half the defending team need to go into the penalty area surrounding the taker?
Click to expand...
I'd love them to bring in guidelines where within 5 seconds of a penalty being awarded, any defensive players left in (or subsequently entering) the penalty area get an automatic caution (goalkeeper and injured players excluded), and anyone deliberately going within 2 yards of the penalty spot on their way out of the area gets a yellow as well.

Too much crappy gamesmanship with defenders trying to unsettle takers, scuffing up the spot and run-up, and so on, and weak referees not punishing it under the existing rules of unsporting behaviour - which 100% it is.

Get the hell out of the box, shut up, and let us get on with the kick.
 
DavidObs said:
Runner Ref highlighted quite correctly that the incident in the Wolves and Man City games with different outcomes were from the same Referee. However, what is the possibility that following the Wolves game he reflected upon it, discussed it with colleagues and even HW and may have thought that perhaps he should have disallowed for offside & therefore, when a similar situation came again, that’s what he did.
Click to expand...
Well, no. Howard Webb confirmed that the correct decision in the Wolves game was goal

"It was disallowed in real-time. There was a bit of confusion initially as to whether it had be disallowed. It had. The on-field officials determined that Bernardo Silva had committed an offside offence when the ball was headed forward by John Stones. He can’t commit an offence before that because the ball comes from a corner and the law states you cannot be penalised for offside from a corner.

"But as soon as John Stones heads it forward, then his [Silva] position becomes relevant. Then we have to judge whether he has committed an offside offence. Now to do that, he has to be in an offside position - which he is - he also has to be doing other things. He either has to touch the ball - he doesn’t - he either has to be in the line or sight of the goalkeeper - he’s not - or he has to in some way challenge the goalkeeper, impact his movement, make physical contact with him. He doesn’t do any of those things as we can see.

"So when the VAR looked at that, he could see that the goal was good, the offside offence hadn’t been committed by Bernardo Silva and quite rightly intervened to have the goal awarded. If he stays in front of Jose Sa, then he [Silva] would be penalised, because he is right in front blocking the line of sight, impacting his ability to react. We saw that with a game at Wolves against West Ham last year when [Lukasz] Fabianski was impacted and that was correctly intervened upon."
 
Dermot Gallagher on RefWatch putting the on field decision solely on the assistant.
Bit bizarre when he knows their would've been a conversation
 
bester said:
Dermot Gallagher on RefWatch putting the on field decision solely on the assistant.
Bit bizarre when he knows their would've been a conversation
Click to expand...
Yeah, just been reading the transcript of that. The AR simply signals someone is in an offside position. It’s for the referee to ultimately make the judgement call.

"I'm not trying to defend [referee] Chris Kavanagh, but we shouldn't hang him out to dry because he didn't make the decision yesterday, that was made by the assistant.
 
As a referee he should know the referee is the only match official who makes 'the decisions'. AR and all other match officials only advise the referee - with the final decision always made by the referee.

He can say the AR gave the ref the wrong information but to say AR made the decision is misleading the public to say the least.
 
one said:
He can say the AR gave the ref the wrong information but to say AR made the decision is misleading the public to say the least.
Click to expand...
All of the ex-referees who are now acting as pundits do. None of them seem to add any value to anything.

Clattenburg & Hackett will always criticise and say they were wrong

Gallagher for the most part just agrees with the referee (then adds incorrect soundbites as seen above)

Dean tends to just agree with the referee. Even if it means changing what he said initially
 
Russell Jones said:
Was entirely unsurprised to see this called offside by the on-field officials and once that has happened, no way that VAR will get involved. If a player in an offside position has to jump over or duck under a ball heading goalwards, then it's highly likely to be seen as an offence.

For clarity ... no, it wasn't a "line of vision" offence, no he didn't "attempt to play the ball". But he most definitely made an obvious action and so the only judgement to be made is whether this action "clearly impacts the ability of an opponent to play the ball". Whilst I agree with the points made around the "clearly" piece of this, the reality is that the goalkeeper came close to saving the header .. even a momentary, tenth of a second delay in his dive (caused by uncertainty over whether the ball would hit Robertson) could have easily made all the difference.
Click to expand...
I must confess I'm seeing it the same way.

When you're in an offside position and the ball is heading towards you meaning you have to deliberately move to avoid it (potentially) hitting you then I'd say you're impacting someone somewhere!! :D

The correct call for me. 👍
 
Runner Ref said:
Well, no. Howard Webb confirmed that the correct decision in the Wolves game was goal

"It was disallowed in real-time. There was a bit of confusion initially as to whether it had be disallowed. It had. The on-field officials determined that Bernardo Silva had committed an offside offence when the ball was headed forward by John Stones. He can’t commit an offence before that because the ball comes from a corner and the law states you cannot be penalised for offside from a corner.

"But as soon as John Stones heads it forward, then his [Silva] position becomes relevant. Then we have to judge whether he has committed an offside offence. Now to do that, he has to be in an offside position - which he is - he also has to be doing other things. He either has to touch the ball - he doesn’t - he either has to be in the line or sight of the goalkeeper - he’s not - or he has to in some way challenge the goalkeeper, impact his movement, make physical contact with him. He doesn’t do any of those things as we can see.

"So when the VAR looked at that, he could see that the goal was good, the offside offence hadn’t been committed by Bernardo Silva and quite rightly intervened to have the goal awarded. If he stays in front of Jose Sa, then he [Silva] would be penalised, because he is right in front blocking the line of sight, impacting his ability to react. We saw that with a game at Wolves against West Ham last year when [Lukasz] Fabianski was impacted and that was correctly intervened upon."
Click to expand...
Well with this being the case from the Wolves game then CK has judged the Liverpool incident as different, where there is at least one difference. I’m not saying he was right, but many can see why he has interpreted the incident in the way he did (and many can’t).
 
one said:
As a referee he should know the referee is the only match official who makes 'the decisions'. AR and all other match officials only advise the referee - with the final decision always made by the referee.

He can say the AR gave the ref the wrong information but to say AR made the decision is misleading the public to say the least.
Click to expand...
It looks like the only information that the AR gave was that a player was in an offside position and possibly interfering with an opponent.
 
Is there a general flaw in the law?

Was "only penalised on becoming involved in active play" intended strictly to mean that "interfering with an opponent" could only be applied after the ball has been played? What if any of the "interfering" criteria was happening immediately prior to the ball being played?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top