A&H

Interfering with keeper's view?

A

alexv

RefChat Addict
Level 5 Referee
Apparently one pundit thinks the first goal should be ruled out as two players were in an offside position and prevented the keeper from saving it. What are your thoughts? As an AR, it's an interesting one but I don't think there was much wrong with it and didn't see any complaints from the keeper. Fine performance from the officials. The man in the middle is at my RA meeting on Thursday but unfortunately I can't make it...

 
The Referee Store
Nope. Keeper is more or less in the centre. One/two offside players are to the left of pen mark, the kick is coming from the right of pen mark. No chance of impeding the view.

Screenshot_20190303-000339.jpg
 
one said:
Nope. Keeper is more or less in the centre. One/two offside players are to the left of pen mark, the kick is coming from the right of pen mark. No chance of impeding the view.

View attachment 3187
Click to expand...
I agree. Surely the pundit must've thought it was Bamford who was one of the two players (the one who's borderline on/off but impossible to tell from this angle) and not the player on the far left, as he's nowhere near his line of vision
 
Goal

That said, at grass roots, I would have no issue with an AR putting the flag up and at least having the chat. Hopefully it would end with the correct result, esp given the referees position. As we know, things look different on the line
 
alexv said:
but impossible to tell from this angle)
Click to expand...
Actually very much possible :) there is a grass cutting line going straight through the centre of goal, penalty spot and kick off mark. Keeper is on it. Offside players are well to the left of it. Ball is well to the the right of it. Simple laws of trigonometry :)
 
Don't think the furthest forward player interferes with the line of vision but it does look like the other player, not sure if he's off, makes an attempt to play the ball when it's close to him.
 
one said:
Which on it's own is not enough for an offside offence even if he is in an offside position.
Click to expand...
Would making an attempt for the ball like that not constitute challenging?

It potentially makes the goalkeeper hesitate thus interfering with play.
 
It's not just challenging for the ball. It has to be challenging 'an opponent' for the ball. So if you mean he challenged the goalkeeper then it doesn't make sense when the goal keeper is 15 yards away from the player. We have to put our own "here is what should happen" aside and follow what the law wants us to do and the law is specific on this.

1551691508250.png
1551691534999.png
 
Does he need to challenge an opponent if he attempts to play the ball? He simply needs to impact an opponent, delaying the goalkeepers dive would seem to impact the play.

In this case the keeper wasn’t getting it anyway so you can’t see any perceived impact preventing the goalkeeper saving it.
 
bester said:
Does he need to challenge an opponent if he attempts to play the ball? He simply needs to impact an opponent, delaying the goalkeepers dive would seem to impact the play.

In this case the keeper wasn’t getting it anyway so you can’t see any perceived impact preventing the goalkeeper saving it.
Click to expand...
I think this was my way of thinking about it.

Agree that he's not in the way of the keeper.
 
bester said:
Does he need to challenge an opponent if he attempts to play the ball? He simply needs to impact an opponent, delaying the goalkeepers dive would seem to impact the play.

In this case the keeper wasn’t getting it anyway so you can’t see any perceived impact preventing the goalkeeper saving it.
Click to expand...
A very very long stretch to call this offside on that basis. Keeper clearly goes for the ball as soon as he sees it with no impact from the attacking player. The only reason for delayed reaction is his own players blocking his view. This is very clear from both the video and the pictures. The attacker's movement or no movement would have made no difference whatsoever. But if we are looking for an excuse not to give the goal, you can argue the furthest attacker's running action also distracted (and hence impacted) the goal keeper. It's just not what the law was meant for.
 
bester said:
Does he need to challenge an opponent if he attempts to play the ball? He simply needs to impact an opponent, delaying the goalkeepers dive would seem to impact the play.
Click to expand...

This isn't in the LOTG. It makes sense and probably should be but it isn't a technical term. The only way he can interfere (note, not impact) an opponent is by
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or (no)
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or (no)
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or (no)
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball (no)
I don't think you can apply any of the above to this situation.
 
Easy one that for me GOAL.

Player is just before the penalty spot so about ten yards from the keeper, as stated above his own player is the one who blocks his view more than any Leeds player.
 
alexgr said:
This isn't in the LOTG. It makes sense and probably should be but it isn't a technical term. The only way he can interfere (note, not impact) an opponent is by
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or (no)
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or (no)
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or (no)
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball (no)
I don't think you can apply any of the above to this situation.
Click to expand...

I think you missed that he was discussing an attempt to play the ball--which is the third bullet and refers to impacting an opponent. If, ITOOTR, that was an attempt to play the ball that impacted the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball, it would be an OS offense. But I agree that on this bang-bang play I would not apply it.

(FWIW, in the US if the AR thought it was a 3d bullet violation (or that it might be such a violation), the instruction is not to raise the flag, but to stand still. By not signalling a goal, the R knows there is an issue and he need to consult with the AR.)
 
socal lurker said:
I think you missed that he was discussing an attempt to play the ball--which is the third bullet and refers to impacting an opponent. If, ITOOTR, that was an attempt to play the ball that impacted the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball, it would be an OS offense. But I agree that on this bang-bang play I would not apply it.

(FWIW, in the US if the AR thought it was a 3d bullet violation (or that it might be such a violation), the instruction is not to raise the flag, but to stand still. By not signalling a goal, the R knows there is an issue and he need to consult with the AR.)
Click to expand...

True but he doesn’t attempt to play the ball, ergo the rest of the clause is irrelevant
 
alexgr said:
True but he doesn’t attempt to play the ball, ergo the rest of the clause is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Dude (I'm in Southern California, so I can say Dude;)), you "corrected" Bester on "impact" when what he wrote was precisely correct: if there is an attempt on the ball, the test for interference with an opponent is whether that attempt (close to the ball) impacted an opponent.

I'll go with you that there was not an attempt that impacted the GK--but it's close as he moves to the ball as it goes past.
 
Unless one of the players try to play the ball, I.E stick a foot out or try and head it, there's no issue here for me. Whoever the pundit is needs to have a read of the laws
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top