A&H

GK "blocked view" - Brighton v Leicester

bloovee

RefChat Addict
Getting silly with the interpretation of the GK being prevented from playing the ball. Very generous to GKs.
 
The Referee Store
We talked about this a couple of weeks ago for another disallowed goal also against Leicester (scored by Norwich I think).

Must add the laws for obstructing line of vision is not specific against goalkeepers and can apply to any opponent. But they should apply tighter for GK because they get targetted due to their special privileges of being able save using their hand.

It's funny to see attackers man marking defenders (you expect the other way around) and be in an offside position, yet complain when they are called for offside. And then same attacker do it again in the same game.

As the laws says they can not cover every situation (I think it does in this case anyway) and when in doubt refer to spirit of the game. For me what the attacker is doing here is not in the spirit of the game.
 
Last edited:
I think the first one is definitely a valid offside call. The second however, I think is very harsh - he's much further away from being in line with the GK's vision and has perhaps only been picked up for this because he was bang-to-rights on the first one. Much easier to spot something when you're looking specifically for it.
 
I think the first one is definitely a valid offside call. The second however, I think is very harsh - he's much further away from being in line with the GK's vision and has perhaps only been picked up for this because he was bang-to-rights on the first one. Much easier to spot something when you're looking specifically for it.
I can't help but feel that PGMOL used the Norwich game in their reviews and decided they wanted this (deliberate man marking of keepers) called offside if it comes anywhere close it. And sure enough, they had to exercise it twice in this game.
 
For the 2nd one I can only think that angles/views available to the VAR, Ref and AR have fooled them - he's no where near the GK nor in his line of vision.
 
After having one goal disallowed, I don't know why Barnes decided to do it again; although, the second time he didn't block the gk's view. Perhaps, the referee decided that because he's so dense, light bends around him which obstructed the gk's vision?
 
The first one is supportable, but the second one is baffling, he isn't even close to being in the line of sight.
True, but I think this might be a case where it's more of a 'spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law' interpretation. As suggested by @one it could well be that referees are seeing the tactic of deliberately standing in an offside position to impede the goalkeepers movement and/or line of sight for a period of time (up to and including the last touch by a team mate) leading up to the goal as being fundamentally contrary to the intent of the offside law, even if it doesn't quite fall fully within the current wording.

I also agree with @Mr Dean that it was just totally bone-headed of Barnes, having been hauled up for it once already, to then do the same thing again, shortly thereafter.
 
Last edited:
Players don't know the nuances of Law, let alone think about them; especially offside
The EPL Refs are now taking this rule too far. That said and with the benefit of reflecting upon the Norwich discussion, Referees can't be asked whether the obstruction of sight would've led to a 'save' or not. That would be unfair to expect a Referee to make that consideration. Therefore, there's no choice but to accept that sometimes a goal will be disallowed because line of sight is obstructed even though a save is hardly possible. However, the EPL Refs need to stop 'finding' trivial interference in a bid to look clever
 
Thought that would come up....

so here is one I prepared earlier!

offside player blocking gk view, impeding him, preventing him making a save, getting involved in active play, anything?

the offside position of the striker has no impact at all.
 

Attachments

  • C58830CA-9AAE-4523-918D-A9557779B772.png
    C58830CA-9AAE-4523-918D-A9557779B772.png
    3.3 MB · Views: 17
Thought that would come up....

so here is one I prepared earlier!

offside player blocking gk view, impeding him, preventing him making a save, getting involved in active play, anything?

the offside position of the striker has no impact at all.
Your photograph has the attacker cut off.

Screenshot_20210927_215126.jpg

This is the moment the ball is player. Watkins is interfering with opponent in my opinion here.

I think there is an argument for de gea not getting involved with him and the attacker is smart to try and do it before the crucial moment that is his team mate playing the ball but for me he is still active and interfering at that point.

So it doesn't really fit in thos thread as blocking gk view that isn't the case but it does fit, for me on impacting opponent ability to play the ball.
 
Your photograph has the attacker cut off.

View attachment 5190

This is the moment the ball is player. Watkins is interfering with opponent in my opinion here.

I think there is an argument for de gea not getting involved with him and the attacker is smart to try and do it before the crucial moment that is his team mate playing the ball but for me he is still active and interfering at that point.

So it doesn't really fit in thos thread as blocking gk view that isn't the case but it does fit, for me on impacting opponent ability to play the ball.

Bit of outside interference with the hand of God shoving the attacker at the top of the goal area there.

But aside from that, I agree. Interfering with opponent through jostling, not by blocking the view of the GK
 
Your photograph has the attacker cut off.

View attachment 5190

This is the moment the ball is player. Watkins is interfering with opponent in my opinion here.

I think there is an argument for de gea not getting involved with him and the attacker is smart to try and do it before the crucial moment that is his team mate playing the ball but for me he is still active and interfering at that point.

So it doesn't really fit in thos thread as blocking gk view that isn't the case but it does fit, for me on impacting opponent ability to play the ball.
I was waiting for a thread on this.
This is 100% obvious offside for me.
I cannot believe this was not VAR'd off.
 
So it doesn't really fit in thos thread as blocking gk view that isn't the case but it does fit, for me on impacting opponent ability to play the ball.
I was going to say the same thing.

For me, Watkins has interfered with an opponent, not by blocking his view, but by:

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

As I see this, Watkins has his arm across de Gea's body for a while as the ball is coming in and even if the contact was almost over by the time the ball touched Hause, there was still contact and if you watch the clips of the incident, you can see that this continued holding prevents de Gea from moving across to the near post to attempt to make a save, as he was trying to do, until it was too late.
 
The bullet that follows the ways to interfere with an opponent may even be more clear:

• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball

(it has always seemed a bit odd that this bullet doesn’t quite fit any of the four ways set out above on how interference occurs, but is clearly set out as an offense. We tend to say there are four ways, but there is really a fifth.)
 
Back
Top