Liverpool v WBA - Alan Shearer correct shock!

[PinnerPaul]

Commenting on the (delayed) disallowed WBA goal.

Said AR should have raised his flag under new interpretation (Well he called them the "rules" - you can't have everything!) straight away, as all 4 WBA players were "offside" Hard to disagree as all were close to the ball, attempted to play the ball and influenced opponents' abiltiy to do so.

I too, can't understand why AR didn't raise flag straight away?

Thoughts?

 

[AlexF]

If I'm not mistaken, instruction in that case (where the ball goes straight into the goal) is to talk talk talk over the comms to say stuff like "four WBA guys off, are they impeding/impacting?" and pillar. Ref tells you "impact", you raise flag, Ref says "no no no" or "goal", you indicate goal.

 

[Russell Jones]

Errr, the ball didn't go straight into the goal .. it was headed in by one of the four WBA players in an offside position when the ball was kicked. As Paul says, no reason in this case not to simply raise the flag as a) the player who scored the goal was offside and b) other players in an offside position attempted to play the ball thus interfering with the GK

 

[Tealeaf]

"Referee, not sure who the ball touched. 4 attackers stood offside. Can you advise please?" perhaps?

 

[PinnerPaul]

"Referee, not sure who the ball touched. 4 attackers stood offside. Can you advise please?" perhaps?

But, under new interpretation, didn't matter who touched the ball, even if own goal, as all influenced the GK and defenders' ability to play the ball.

 

[CapnBloodbeard]

Where did you get that Paul? Simply being there and influencing the defensive decision doesn't justify an offside decision - they would need to block the keeper's/defender's view/progress for that to occur.

 

[Russell Jones]

Not under the new interpretation of the offside law that's been introduced in England this season. Now, if the actions of the attackers in an offside position are clearly likely to have an impact on the defender's decision making, then that's considered to be 'active' and interfering with play. In this instance, ALL of the four offside players could have been penalised under that interpretation and therefore there was no reason to delay the flag. Good and fair amendment to the interpretation IMO

 

[AlexF]

Not just introduced in England. IFAB put it out for worldwide use.

The FA (England) put out some documentation in conjunction with PGMOL (that matches decently well with what UEFA has reportedly released) that indicates the need for three considerations, "close to the ball" (ie, a reasonable chance of actually playing it), making a deliberate move (ie, attempt to play the ball, simply running in a direction is not sufficient), and these two things combined "impact" on a player on the defending team.

Note: I've not seen the play, so I cannot comment one way or another whether these three criteria are satisfied or not...

 

[PinnerPaul]

A

Not under the new interpretation of the offside law that's been introduced in England this season. Now, if the actions of the attackers in an offside position are clearly likely to have an impact on the defender's decision making, then that's considered to be 'active' and interfering with play. In this instance, ALL of the four offside players could have been penalised under that interpretation and therefore there was no reason to delay the flag. Good and fair amendment to the interpretation IMO

Agree!

 

[bloovee]

It turns on "clear attempt to play the ball". From the illustration on the EPL site (not of this game!), Shearer was wrong. Intending to play the ball if they got the chance is not the same as a clear attempt to play the ball; even if having three "offside" players running in the GK's direction worries the GK it does not satisfy the criteria. Going up for a header, sticking a foot out, that's a clear attempt. Vaguely running toward goal isn't. Of the four players in an offside position in this game, only one got close to the ball and had a clear attempt to play it. Had he been onside the goal should have stood. All three criteria have to be satisfied.

Still not sure why the flag didn't go up.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...ce-on-new-interpretation-of-offside-rule.html

 

[PinnerPaul]

It turns on "clear attempt to play the ball". From the illustration on the EPL site (not of this game!), Shearer was wrong. Intending to play the ball if they got the chance is not the same as a clear attempt to play the ball; even if having three "offside" players running in the GK's direction worries the GK it does not satisfy the criteria. Going up for a header, sticking a foot out, that's a clear attempt. Vaguely running toward goal isn't. Of the four players in an offside position in this game, only one got close to the ball and had a clear attempt to play it. Had he been onside the goal should have stood. All three criteria have to be satisfied.

Still not sure why the flag didn't go up.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...ce-on-new-interpretation-of-offside-rule.html

It turns on "clear attempt to play the ball". From the illustration on the EPL site (not of this game!), Shearer was wrong. Intending to play the ball if they got the chance is not the same as a clear attempt to play the ball; even if having three "offside" players running in the GK's direction worries the GK it does not satisfy the criteria. Going up for a header, sticking a foot out, that's a clear attempt. Vaguely running toward goal isn't. Of the four players in an offside position in this game, only one got close to the ball and had a clear attempt to play it. Had he been onside the goal should have stood. All three criteria have to be satisfied.

Still not sure why the flag didn't go up.

http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/...ce-on-new-interpretation-of-offside-rule.html

Sort of see where you're coming from but that's a very fine line between "clear attempt" and "intending to play the ball"!

Try explaining THAT to a CAR!

 

[xPositor]

Sort of see where you're coming from but that's a very fine line between "clear attempt" and "intending to play the ball"!

Try explaining THAT to a CAR!

You don't. Those interpretations aren't intended for grass-roots (and yes, that in itself causes complications). I brief CAR's that I only want them to flag for offside once a player in an offside position makes contact with the ball. In addition, I also tell them (and the managers, and captains) that if a flag goes up in that part of the field, I'm letting the play conclude - then I'll go and talk with the CAR before making a decision (i.e. goal/no goal).

 

[PinnerPaul]

You don't. Those interpretations aren't intended for grass-roots (and yes, that in itself causes complications). I brief CAR's that I only want them to flag for offside once a player in an offside position makes contact with the ball. In addition, I also tell them (and the managers, and captains) that if a flag goes up in that part of the field, I'm letting the play conclude - then I'll go and talk with the CAR before making a decision (i.e. goal/no goal).

I know that - hence the winking face!

Not sure if ignoring every flag until ball goes dead (which you imply) is a good idea though - doesn't that cause you all manner of control issues?

For my part my pre match brief is along the lines of "Please raise flag for offsides, which I only want if a player plays the ball or is about to. I will agree & blow my whistle or I may disagree and will raise my hand in acknowledgement, then please put flag down (and we can have argument later!)

I don't accept/want any other decisions apart from helping me with ball in and out of play, so them raising flag for other offences shouldn't happen and if it does I will ignore it in any case!

 

[Peter Grove]

Contrary to what certain earlier posters have stated or implied, the new guidelines on offside do not come from the FA or UEFA and they were not introduced only in England. The new interpretations came directly from the IFAB (who are now issuing their own circulars rather than having FIFA do it on their behalf) and so are applicable world-wide.

Also, under these new guidelines, it is not only making a clear attempt to play the ball that had been added to the sub-categories of the "interfering with an opponent." The IFAB circular no. 3 also states that:

"In addition to the situations already outlined in the Laws of the Game, a player in an offside position shall also be penalised if he [...] makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball."

In addition, as far as I am aware, the publicly-circulated, IFAB-issued Laws and other instructions/guidelines are intended to apply at all levels (or if not, this is clearly stated within the document).

 

[AlexF]

In addition, as far as I am aware, the publicly-circulated, IFAB-issued Laws and other instructions/guidelines are intended to apply at all levels (or if not, this is clearly stated within the document).

This is true, but the FA in England clearly also stated that these new interpretations are not to be done by Club ARs, which is what xPositor is alluding to.

 

[Peter Grove]

This is true, but the FA in England clearly also stated that these new interpretations are not to be done by Club ARs, which is what xPositor is alluding to.

Well, if you are in an area or under a jurisdiction that says club AR's should not be involved in offside decisions in the first place, then I suppose this makes sense. If however you referee where neutral AR's are used even at lower levels or where Club AR's are authorised to make offside decisions (as I believe is sometimes the case) then I can't see why these AR's should not be working to the current guidelines. As mentioned, it has always been my understanding that the laws of the game (and other instructions publicly issued by the IFAB) are intended to be universally applicable, unless otherwise stated.

 

[xPositor]

Well, if you are in an area or under a jurisdiction that says club AR's should not be involved in offside decisions in the first place, then I suppose this makes sense. If however you referee where neutral AR's are used even at lower levels or where Club AR's are authorised to make offside decisions (as I believe is sometimes the case) then I can't see why these AR's should not be working to the current guidelines. As mentioned, it has always been my understanding that the laws of the game (and other instructions publicly issued by the IFAB) are intended to be universally applicable, unless otherwise stated.

Why do we simplify the interpretation of the offside law for CAR's? The same reason we don't ask them to "do fouls". Whilst some teams will have a CAR that does it week in, week out for them, fully understands what they are doing, what the laws are etc, the vast majority will pull in a player, spectator or parent who is just as likely to run the line and flag as if they were doing a rugby match. For me, as long as they are keeping in line with that second last defensive player so have a good view of whether a player is in an offside position or not, flag up for a player that is active when they play the ball is good enough. To a) explain the interpretations and then b) expect them to understand and act on them is a step too far...

 

[bloovee]

Except anyone can see the new interpretation in action on televised matches (even if Shearer doesn't understand it) so why not expect it to be applied? Did we not expect the previous "official" interpretation to be applied? It's not that difficult - has a player in an offside position done something that clearly puts off an opponent?

 

[PinnerPaul]

Why do we simplify the interpretation of the offside law for CAR's? The same reason we don't ask them to "do fouls". Whilst some teams will have a CAR that does it week in, week out for them, fully understands what they are doing, what the laws are etc, the vast majority will pull in a player, spectator or parent who is just as likely to run the line and flag as if they were doing a rugby match. For me, as long as they are keeping in line with that second last defensive player so have a good view of whether a player is in an offside position or not, flag up for a player that is active when they play the ball is good enough. To a) explain the interpretations and then b) expect them to understand and act on them is a step too far...

Yep - spot on!

 

[PinnerPaul]

Except anyone can see the new interpretation in action on televised matches (even if Shearer doesn't understand it) so why not expect it to be applied? Did we not expect the previous "official" interpretation to be applied? It's not that difficult - has a player in an offside position done something that clearly puts off an opponent?

Well considering there have been several clear errors, inc this example that I started the thread with, in the PL regarding the new interpretation it clearly isn't that straightforward!