Cup Final..

[Mooseybaby]

Personally, I'd be giving handball though. You have to ask what his arms are doing up there, and if they weren't then the goal would simply not have happened. I wonder if a goal would have been given if the handling offence was closer to goal and the ball went directly in? I very much suspect not, so I don't see that it would be any different here.

Echoes of the Sanchez's goal against Hull in the Premier League, which was also the subject of lengthy debate on here. Some like me, thought the goal should not of stood especially as the the ball heading away from goal when it connected with Sanchez raised arm, where as others were insistent it was a perfectly legal goal...

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Be interesting had the game been covered by VAR. Would a handball have been given? My guess is out of 10 refs, 6 would say handball and 4 would not. Then you have the "offside". Total guess again of course, but, out of 10 refs, 7 onside, 3 offside? Either way, I don't think you can have a definite answer on the handball, and as we see on here, the definition of offside/playing the ball/interferin/touching the ball has provoked numerous differing takes on the situation. I think the officials got it right on both calls, and a VAR would simply have led to an even more muddled debate.

 

[J79]

In number 1 above, any attempt by the PIOP to actually play the ball (and by play it does mean attempted contact, not just running towards the ball) can "impact an opponent" even if that opponent is not in a position to play the ball. For example an attempt to shoot that just misses the ball but sends the keeper (five yards away) diving the wrong way. This "impacts" his action and leads to offside call.

But from which moment on can you say a player is really "attempting to play a ball" then? Only when he is close to the ball and moves his foot forward trying to reach the ball (with then two options left: he touches it or he misses it)?

Because before he stops, Ramsey is doing everything a player who wants to hit the ball does (and this alone can already have an impact on Courtois - in terms of "impacting an opponent", there's almost no difference between Ramsey doing what he did or Ramsey shooting and missing the ball). If Ramsey swings his foot back and then stops (because he sees Alexis coming), it'd still not considered to be offside?

If so, should "which is close to him" really be in that phrase? Because any player who would try to play the ball should in that case be close to it. And the text could only causes confusion, namely in this case, where you have a player in offside position who is close to the ball, who can play the ball, who has (can have) an impact on the opponent, and who only at the very last moment decides not to try to touch it.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Here is a different take on the offside. A simpler take on it. Can we penalise Sanchez for Ramsey being offside? No, clearly we cant, so goal ?

 

[GraemeS]

Here is a different take on the offside. A simpler take on it. Can we penalise Sanchez for Ramsey being offside? No, clearly we cant, so goal ?

That's in irrelevant and borderline wrong way of looking at it. Ramsey is the one who would have committed the offence, Ramsey is the one who would have been called off side. Sanchez is an unlucky bystander. What if Ramsey had laid it off for Sanchez - are you still going to argue that Sanchez shouldn't be penalised?

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Well we would not penalise a team mate for attempting to handle a ball but missing it and it runs through to someone who scores.

 

[QuaverRef]

Well we would not penalise a team mate for attempting to handle a ball but missing it and it runs through to someone who scores.

No you wouldn't but that's a completely different and irrelevant. You can't just choose to say somebody is onside because it's unfair

 

[GraemeS]

Well we would not penalise a team mate for attempting to handle a ball but missing it and it runs through to someone who scores.

But that's something else entirely different. Attempting to handball cannot be an offence, where as attempting to play the ball can, under the right circumstances be an offside offence.

 

[one]

Be interesting had the game been covered by VAR. Would a handball have been given? My guess is out of 10 refs, 6 would say handball and 4 would not. Then you have the "offside". Total guess again of course, but, out of 10 refs, 7 onside, 3 offside? Either way, I don't think you can have a definite answer on the handball, and as we see on here, the definition of offside/playing the ball/interferin/touching the ball has provoked numerous differing takes on the situation. I think the officials got it right on both calls, and a VAR would simply have led to an even more muddled debate.

VARs interfere in "clearly wring" decisions only. As the length of debate on both the offside and handball cases here prove, neither of those cases are in the clearly wrong spectrum.

 

[Jack M]

VARs interfere in "clearly wring" decisions only. As the length of debate on both the offside and handball cases here prove, neither of those cases are in the clearly wrong spectrum.

Not strictly true. There is a video clip on YouTube in America who gave a free kick on the edge of the area and went to the VAR to help determine wether it was DOGSO or not.

After checking the footage, the ref produced a straight red card

 

[GraemeS]

Not strictly true. There is a video clip on YouTube in America who gave a free kick on the edge of the area and went to the VAR to help determine wether it was DOGSO or not.

After checking the footage, the ref produced a straight red card

There's a difference between "the VAR interfering" (ie. shouting down the referees ear that he needs to stop play and take a look) and the VAR being asked (ie. the on field referee isn't sure about a specific aspect of a decision).

The comment you're replying to describes the former, where the incident you describe is the latter. Both are acceptable under the current VAR rules, but there are important distinctions regarding when either is allowed to occur.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Which was my point, although not clearly made granted.
I merely sad, covered. I never suggested undue interference.
Taylor might have asked for VAR guideance. Given the debate on here, my point was, in either the handball or offside or indeed both calls, the VAR might not provide clarity. The VAR might say, offside. And in my humble opinion, that would be the wrong call.

 

[Padfoot]

If there are 3 officials on the pitch, and they can't get a DOGSO call between them, may as well pack it up and go home.

VAR becomes a crutch for referees to lean on, and enables them to avoid make match changing decisions themselves......being able to blame a faceless official sat well away from the ire of players and managers, thus avoiding any responsibility for big decisions.

Will just produce a whole new generation of feeble and weak elite level refs who can't make big decisions.

 

[JamesL]

If there are 3 officials on the pitch, and they can't get a DOGSO call between them, may as well pack it up and go home.

VAR becomes a crutch for referees to lean on, and enables them to avoid make match changing decisions themselves......being able to blame a faceless official sat well away from the ire of players and managers, thus avoiding any responsibility for big decisions.

Will just produce a whole new generation of feeble and weak elite level refs who can't make big decisions.

And a generation of players demanding video footage be reviewed, not being punished in accordance with the lotg.

Im all for VAR if used properly and the process is improved. The current process is awful imo.

 

[Ciley Myrus]

If there are 3 officials on the pitch, and they can't get a DOGSO call between them, may as well pack it up and go home.

VAR becomes a crutch for referees to lean on, and enables them to avoid make match changing decisions themselves......being able to blame a faceless official sat well away from the ire of players and managers, thus avoiding any responsibility for big decisions.

Will just produce a whole new generation of feeble and weak elite level refs who can't make big decisions.

Already seems to be the case. That u20 WC England v whoever red card, the referee abandoned recognised appreciation of wide angle, the AR1 and 4th were watching Last Of the Summer Wine on UK Gold and the VAR jumped in witn a RC for VC.

Future and indeed current top refs just need to be athletes. The actual decision making becomes a side concern.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

Looked wrong first time around...

 

[Ciley Myrus]

Under current marking, a ref who makes an incorrect call, such as this, will still be marked max 7.9 even if its corrected.
Is this still going to be the case in clips such as above?

 

[J79]

Under current marking, a ref who makes an incorrect call, such as this, will still be marked max 7.9 even if its corrected.
Is this still going to be the case in clips such as above?

By the way, will the video assistant referee also be marked?

 

[bloovee]

We had a complete new draft of simplified Laws with thousands of words removed to help referee and yet they still leave in the words Playing OR Touching in the texts and you casually brush over that (saying they mean the same thing) like they've made a blooming mistake.
We all know, well the cleverer ones, know that it's a different thing and so do the lawmakers. To make a play for the ball and to actually kick the ball are clearly not the same thing! How you can say the initial actions didn't impact on the goalkeepers thoughts is laughable, Look at the photo, who's he chasing out to to block any angle created???. Had this been correctly given we'd be discussing other stuff that he missed (Ozil foul) or Costas kick out...

I agree. Play is defined in the lotg as a deliberate action that makes contact with the ball. Thats a direct quote from the laws themself. As you say the lawmakers havent made a mistake. Therefore, we know that to play or have played then the player must make a deliberate action that could be a kick, a shin, a knee, thigh, chest or head but not limited to. But a deliberate action that makes contact is one thing that doesn't change.
A touch can be non-deliberate and it is clear to me this is why we must have this distinguishment. It says that if a player deliberately plays or deliberately or accidentally touches the ball e.g. a deflection then they should still be penalised. If we just had played we could then interpret that we shouldn't penalise non deliberate actions.

You both have a touching faith in the infallibility of IFAB.

Is there any situation in the laws, where a distinction is made between touched and played, where the word "touched" on its own would mean something different? We even have the word "passed" as a synonym for "played".

LOTG definition: Played = Action by a player which makes contact with the ball.

If you make contact with the ball, you've touched it. You can't play it without touching it.

 

[Sheffields Finest]

That’s a leap of faith Blowme... The law says Played or Touched....in other words they are not the same thing, hence the added word OR...Why have both if the word ‘Played’ indicates a touch....