Liverpool vs A Madrid

[bester]

Handball penalty given when it wasn't even close to hitting an arm. Over turned on review.

 

[es1]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968402223089541342

I can't fathom a scenario where this should be allowed, regardless of what's written in law

 

[RustyRef]

Credit to referee, there's absolutely no way that should have been recommend as a review. The speed in which he looked at it and dismissed it shows how bad a review it was.

Controversy on the Athletico goal though, my first thought was that has to be offside, the attacker couldn't have been any more in the line of sight of the keeper. But from the half time replays Griezmann didn't really block Allison's view, it didn't affect his dive, so I can see why VAR didn't get involved.

 

[OnlyUseMeWhistle]

Credit to referee, there's absolutely no way that should have been recommend as a review. The speed in which he looked at it and dismissed it shows how bad a review it was.

Controversy on the Athletico goal though, my first thought was that has to be offside, the attacker couldn't have been any more in the line of sight of the keeper. But from the half time replays Griezmann didn't really block Allison's view, it didn't affect his dive, so I can see why VAR didn't get involved.

The offside it helps that Allison never gets to that

 

[RefereeX]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1968402223089541342

I can't fathom a scenario where this should be allowed, regardless of what's written in law

Are you saying you disagree with the decision or the law? I believe the decision is 100% correct.

What impact does the offside player have on Allison's ability to save the shot? He has full view of the shot as it's taken, he does not need to delay his dive due to the player in an offside position and he is at full stretch and doesn't make it.

It's incredibly close to being an offside offence, granted, but it's just the right side of the line.

With all of the above said, I did get asked the question in my coaching group chat from last season last night and I said that I think at our level it's a better outcome to disallow the goal.

 

[es1]

Are you saying you disagree with the decision or the law? I believe the decision is 100% correct.

What impact does the offside player have on Allison's ability to save the shot? He has full view of the shot as it's taken, he does not need to delay his dive due to the player in an offside position and he is at full stretch and doesn't make it.

It's incredibly close to being an offside offence, granted, but it's just the right side of the line.

With all of the above said, I did get asked the question in my coaching group chat from last season last night and I said that I think at our level it's a better outcome to disallow the goal.

i'm saying that i dont agree with the law and its interpretation/application - the decision is 'correct'

 

[JamesL]

i'm saying that i dont agree with the law and its interpretation/application - the decision is 'correct'

What is your disagreement? The player doesnt interfere so why do you think the goal should be disallowed?

 

[es1]

What is your disagreement? The player doesnt interfere so why do you think the goal should be disallowed?

i think by being in that close a proximity to the ball, goal and keeper and given the path of the ball and player there will have been some impact, no matter how small. the fact the ball went in (and was probably going in regardless) shouldn't negate the offence.

 

[JamesL]

i think by being in that close a proximity to the ball, goal and keeper and given the path of the ball and player there will have been some impact, no matter how small. the fact the ball went in (and was probably going in regardless) shouldn't negate the offence.

Its not about the ball going in regardless (although that is consistent with some other areas of law).

It has to be an obvious action that clearly impacts the opponent opponents ability to play the ball.

That's not the case here and I struggle to reason with suggesting anything other than a goal as that goes against the core principle of law 11 that it is not an offence to be in an offside position.

 

[Russell Jones]

i think by being in that close a proximity to the ball, goal and keeper and given the path of the ball and player there will have been some impact, no matter how small. the fact the ball went in (and was probably going in regardless) shouldn't negate the offence.

Like @JamesL , I see no 'obvious action' to penalise here. The impact in this case will solely have been a momentary loss of sight of the ball for the GK when the shot's path went behind the attacker. As the Law currently stands, this 'Line of Vision' impact could be penalised, but only if you believe it prevented the GK from playing / attempting to play the ball. It's a subjective call but I believe it's not credible to give it.

Whilst (like many things about the offside Law) it feels a little harsh on the defending team, that is the current reality of Law 11, which is designed to often favour the attacking team. You could easily alter this balance (eg penalising a LOV that "Might" have impacted a defender) but any change would likely lead to even more confusion, as we've seen with Deliberate Play vs Deflection.

 

[es1]

Its not about the ball going in regardless (although that is consistent with some other areas of law).

It has to be an obvious action that clearly impacts the opponent opponents ability to play the ball.

That's not the case here and I struggle to reason with suggesting anything other than a goal as that goes against the core principle of law 11 that it is not an offence to be in an offside position.

you recall i said the decision was correct in law yes? i dont like the law!

 

[JamesL]

you recall i said the decision was correct in law yes? i dont like the law!

Yes. I answered that bit too. To dislike the law and advocate for offside here goes against one of the core principles of the law.

 

[bester]

He's saving it comfortably before the deflection.
Was his view unobstructed when it deflected off Konate?

 

[es1]

Yes. I answered that bit too. To dislike the law and advocate for offside here goes against one of the core principles of the law.

ok

 

[socal lurker]

With all of the above said, I did get asked the question in my coaching group chat from last season last night and I said that I think at our level it's a better outcome to disallow the goal.

why would you disallow. Goal without n OS offense??

 

[RefereeX]

why would you disallow. Goal without n OS offense??

Because with a lower standard of play and a lot less replays from different angles to watch back afterwards, it's going to be a far tougher job to sell that this had no impact on the goalkeepers ability to stop the shot. I'm only on about this specific example because the player is extremely close to being in a position to block the GKs vision.

 

[Russell Jones]

Because with a lower standard of play and a lot less replays from different angles to watch back afterwards, it's going to be a far tougher job to sell that this had no impact on the goalkeepers ability to stop the shot. I'm only on about this specific example because the player is extremely close to being in a position to block the GKs vision.

I tend to agree. At lower levels, you put an attacker in motion, 6 yards out and in a clear offside position close to the GK eyeline, together with a clear appeal from the keeper that he’s been impacted and an offside flag would be entirely understandable. That said, a good reminder to all referees to switch on to the possibility of offside whenever a shot is taken.

As an observer, I’d be minded to support either decision here … IF it was coherently explained in accordance with law!