A&H

Leeds vs Norwich

sanjay23

sanjay23

New Member
There were many contentious decisions in this game (the Attwell/Dean combo not having a great weekend) but the big talking points for me were the Ayling tackle with studs on Rashica’s ankle (yellow only) and Bamford in offside position for the first goal but deemed to be not interfering with play.
Wondering what people’s thoughts are if you’ve seen them?

There were also a couple of penalty shouts for both teams not given and understandably not overturned by VAR (probably not clear and obvious error) but generally I felt Stuart Attwell had a bad game
 

Attachments

  • 6DA2E17C-CA73-4BF4-837D-8E754E54FB4F.jpeg
    6DA2E17C-CA73-4BF4-837D-8E754E54FB4F.jpeg
    689.6 KB · Views: 20
The Referee Store
PL seems to be doing everything to avoid SFP but as long as we get the millimeter Offside calls were all good.
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
sanjay23 said:
Bamford in offside position for the first goal but deemed to be not interfering with play.
Click to expand...
Well he certainly didn't interfere with play. Whether he interfered with an opponent is an interesting question. He didn't really challenge an opponent but he seems to have made physical contact with the defender who didn't play the ball.
 
From stills, I would have put this offside call in the same category as the one against Van Dijk that resulted in a goal being disallowed a few weeks ago. If he touches the player who's trying to play the ball, that was decided to be enough a few weeks ago and so this should have been disallowed too.
 
GraemeS said:
From stills, I would have put this offside call in the same category as the one against Van Dijk that resulted in a goal being disallowed a few weeks ago. If he touches the player who's trying to play the ball, that was decided to be enough a few weeks ago and so this should have been disallowed too.
Click to expand...
I think you need you watch a clip of it. As @cwyeary correctly says in his post, Bamford made contact with the defender who did not play the ball.

On the still below, the player who headed the ball away is the one in the centre of the 'D' and Bamford is touching the other defender, the one who was not trying to play the ball.

Screenshot_2022_0314_171800.png
 
Here's another angle of it. Bamford is in contact with the Norwich number 4, Ben Gibson, while the defender on the left hand edge of the picture was the only one trying to play the ball (or who had any chance of doing so).
Screenshot_2022_0314_172631.png
 
Peter Grove said:
I think you need you watch a clip of it. As @cwyeary correctly says in his post, Bamford made contact with the defender who did not play the ball.

On the still below, the player who headed the ball away is the one in the centre of the 'D' and Bamford is touching the other defender, the one who was not trying to play the ball.

View attachment 5514
Click to expand...
I will reconsider if a clip is provided.

But again in my counter-example, the player VVD impeded with didn't play the ball, that wasn't a requirement then, only that the contact impacted the player who otherwise might have tried to play the ball. Do we know that 4 wouldn't have tried to play the ball if Bamford wasn't in the way, and the other defender has had to make a much harder interception on the cover because Bamford is causing issues?
 
GraemeS said:
I will reconsider if a clip is provided.

But again in my counter-example, the player VVD impeded with didn't play the ball, that wasn't a requirement then, only that the contact impacted the player who otherwise might have tried to play the ball. Do we know that 4 wouldn't have tried to play the ball if Bamford wasn't in the way, and the other defender has had to make a much harder interception on the cover because Bamford is causing issues?
Click to expand...
No, it's quite, quite different. With the VVD incident, he prevented a player from playing the ball. The player he contacted was clearly poised to jump and head the ball clear, and almost certainly would have done so, if VVD had not physically prevented him.

Gibson was never in the running to play the ball, it wasn't going to go that close to him and the other defender (who wasn't interfered with by Bamford) was always going to play it.

I don't have a clip but it's available on BBC iPlayer easily enough.

As we all know (even though we may not agree with it - and I don't) the other player having to make a much harder interception is irrelevant, so long as Bamford did not do any of the following (and IMO he didn't):

1. Prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.

2. Challenge an opponent for the ball.

3. Clearly attempt to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent.

4. Make an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.

5. Move from an offside position into the way of an opponent and interfere with the movement of the opponent towards the ball in a way that impacted on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball.

As I say, I am not that much in agreement with some of the current interpretations of the offside law but as it stands, this just wasn't an offside offence (IMHO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top