Really can’t see how the player isn’t deemed to be interfering here? VAR again under the spotlight. But really surprised the on-field team didn’t give it.
Man City vs Fulham
- Thread starter Tim Punter
- Start date
Keeper can always see the ball no?
So he doesn't exactly affect his view of the ball.
Will wait for the full analysis on MOTD , where the screen will be bigger, but he motions towards the ball, and this seems to impact the Fulham keepers dive that seems to stutter.
Other clips on Twitter showing Harry Wilson being pulled back by his neck to deny a DOGSO at 0-0. Should be some interesting analysis on MOTD later/
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
My first reaction is it can’t be line of sight- so then is it an obvious action that clearly impacts the opponent’s ability to play the ball… well, as much I want it to be, no, these aren’t given. Right now, this isn’t an offence. Should it be? Probably. But clarification required!
It's given in every league and competition but the Premier League. The laws aren't the problem here.
Has to be offside for me, feels precisely why we have the language we have today.
If he tries to play that ball, I need to see it slower and closer, it's even easier to sell as attempting to play a ball that's close impacting opponents ability to play ball
And if he doesn't it's still an obvious action that impacts opponent. GK has to battle with opponent being there and can't commit to the save attempt until it's too late.
I think Micahel Oliver and VAR were trying to be too clever with their interpretation of
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Or Michael Oliver didn't have a clear view and VAR didn't want to go against one of the most senior Premier League referees.
The Harry Wilson challenge looks even more bizarre.
Is this another example of the flawed dynamic of effectively an EFL referee haven’t to be VAR for a top FIFA referee? Doesn’t feel comfortable, empowered to correct an on field call or intervene and suggest a review, particularly as the referee and AR should call this offside without VAR, so VAR think his on field colleagues had a good view and both believe his actions didn’t impact an opponent, so no clear & obvious error?
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
I think it’s more the PL bias against VAR getting involve. The PL has a standard completely divorced from the rest of the soccer world.
Amazed MOTD never showed this challenge on Wilson? Seemed worthy at least a bit of analysis?
Thought the whole debate on the offside was very protective of Michael Oliver, can’t just completely blame VAR for that?
Thought the whole debate on the offside was very protective of Michael Oliver, can’t just completely blame VAR for that?
VAR watched several replays from multiple angles and still got it wrong. Michael Oliver only saw it once through a crowd of bodies.
one
RefChat Addict
I ask the question a different way. If the PIOP wasn't there, would the keeper have had a better chance of saving the goal? For me a clear yes and so offside.
Note that didn't say would the keeper have saved it. All we need is a better chance. We are talking 'impact' and not 'prevent'.
Note that didn't say would the keeper have saved it. All we need is a better chance. We are talking 'impact' and not 'prevent'.
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
The first couple of replays I saw of this (during the game itself) I thought there was no offside offence, because it seemed the keeper had a clear view of the ball and was able to make a dive towards it with no hindrance from the offside-positioned player.
But in the Match of the Day analysis they showed how the keeper makes a slight movement just as the header is made but then sees the OPP moving within the flight path of the ball and hesitates just very slightly before finally diving for the ball almost exactly as it goes past the OPP, by which time it's too late.
So in the end, I feel this was an offside offence because the player has made an obvious action that has, in the final analysis, clearly impacted on the opponent's ability to play the ball.
But in the Match of the Day analysis they showed how the keeper makes a slight movement just as the header is made but then sees the OPP moving within the flight path of the ball and hesitates just very slightly before finally diving for the ball almost exactly as it goes past the OPP, by which time it's too late.
So in the end, I feel this was an offside offence because the player has made an obvious action that has, in the final analysis, clearly impacted on the opponent's ability to play the ball.
Last edited:
I think that just has to be offside. I thought offside in the ground and seeing the replays hasn’t changed my mind. Although not directly in the line of sight of Leno, Akanji’s movement (although trying to get out of the way) definitely impacted his ability to play the ball. I understand Oliver not being sure, but VAR just has to be stepping in.
As a side note, it was really disappointing to see one of our top referees completely ignore a significant amount of dissent. After the decision, the Fulham players surrounded him and seemingly refused to kick off for a good 90 seconds, with one of the Fulham players kicking the ball away and Luis Boa Morte throwing a second ball onto the pitch for some reason. Poor decision and a very poor couple of minutes afterwards. At HT, one of the Fulham coaches stormed onto the pitch and met the officials half way to moan, which should also have been a caution at the very least. Really poor.
As a side note, it was really disappointing to see one of our top referees completely ignore a significant amount of dissent. After the decision, the Fulham players surrounded him and seemingly refused to kick off for a good 90 seconds, with one of the Fulham players kicking the ball away and Luis Boa Morte throwing a second ball onto the pitch for some reason. Poor decision and a very poor couple of minutes afterwards. At HT, one of the Fulham coaches stormed onto the pitch and met the officials half way to moan, which should also have been a caution at the very least. Really poor.
This is a 'double clear and obvious' situation with C&O being mentioned both in the VAR protocol and the relevant part of Law 11!
Therefore if VAR is thinking that should be offside then there is no doubt that it is a C&O error and should be sent for on-field review. Certainly looks like an offside offence to me.
I am very disappointed in the lack of response to the dissent too.
Therefore if VAR is thinking that should be offside then there is no doubt that it is a C&O error and should be sent for on-field review. Certainly looks like an offside offence to me.
I am very disappointed in the lack of response to the dissent too.
If that doesn't work, five minutes in on
one
RefChat Addict
On a similar note to dissent, I thought the memo at the start of the season was to clamp down on all disciplinary indiscretions, specially 'time waisting'. The only thing I see is some cases of DTR cautioned. Not seen a single case of cautioning a player running close and in the path of a free kick to stop it from being taken quickly. And it happens all the time.
It's a clear offside for me. The keeper doesn't dive until after the ball has passed Akanji, he can't as he has no idea where the ball will be going. Without Akanji being there the keeper saves that comfortably.
Howard Webb will be making another apology phone call.
Howard Webb will be making another apology phone call.