The Ref Stop

Man Utd vs Man City

RustyRef said:
Also, Michael Oliver was hit by the ball four times in this game. Wonder if that is a record, I can't remember seeing that happen before.
Click to expand...
I thought his positioning was really poor.

Yes he needs to be close to the action but there were a number of times (on top of the ones that actually hit him) we he was actively blocking what should have been a useful passing line near the edge of the area - for both teams.

Get out of the way, man!
 
The Ref Stop
RustyRef said:
I have no idea how they came to that conclusion. The post on the PL Match Centre says Fernandez isn't offside as he didn't touch the ball, but him being there in an offside position certain impacts Martinez and arguably also the keeper. If Fernandez wasn't there Martinez could have moved across to Haaland, he's just said that himself. Also the keeper can't move across to better block Haaland as he has to assume that Fernandez might head it on goal. Plus, as has been said, it was very subjective so I don't see why there wasn't an on field review. Fully expect there to be an apology from Howard Webb.

No problem with the red card, its a clearly violent action to kick someone in the stomach like that. I didn't see anything that Fernandes did that could be classified as using excessive force or brutality, but it is poor that he wasn't cautioned.

Also, Michael Oliver was hit by the ball four times in this game. Wonder if that is a record, I can't remember seeing that happen before.
Click to expand...
I've complained often enough about referees getting in the way of attacks and acting as an extra defender. Getting in the way of clearances is just as bad. But I did wonder, in the grand scheme of sh..housery, whether a team down to 10 men might like to relieve the pressure by aiming the ball at the referee...
 
bloovee said:
I've complained often enough about referees getting in the way of attacks and acting as an extra defender. Getting in the way of clearances is just as bad. But I did wonder, in the grand scheme of sh..housery, whether a team down to 10 men might like to relieve the pressure by aiming the ball at the referee...
Click to expand...
Them being told to stay central doesn't help matters, much more risk of being hit by the ball in the middle of the pitch. I guess the counter argument is it doesn't really matter now as play is stopped if it happens, whereas in days gone by the ball hitting the referee could change a game.
 
bloovee said:
I've complained often enough about referees getting in the way of attacks and acting as an extra defender. Getting in the way of clearances is just as bad. But I did wonder, in the grand scheme of sh..housery, whether a team down to 10 men might like to relieve the pressure by aiming the ball at the referee...
Click to expand...
I called for him to do it live!!
 
bloovee said:
Correct.

Once Haaland is shown to be in an onside position, the only argument is interpretation of whether Enzo is
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
We've had plenty of instances where it's been agreed that merely wondering about what an opponent in an offside position might do is not enough to qualify as "impact" (e.g. on a GK 10m away). It's just Sky making more of it than they should.
Click to expand...
This does impact an opponent though, if Fernandez isn't there there's a more than good chance that Martinez can get across to block Haaland's shot. And the keeper could also have shuffled over, which he obviously couldn't do with Fernandez trying to head it. I'd say there is a very strong argument it impacted two opponents so a double whammy.
 
bloovee said:
Correct.

Once Haaland is shown to be in an onside position, the only argument is interpretation of whether Enzo is
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
We've had plenty of instances where it's been agreed that merely wondering about what an opponent in an offside position might do is not enough to qualify as "impact" (e.g. on a GK 10m away). It's just Sky making more of it than they should.
Click to expand...

Just want to clarify you are saying Enzo wasn't offside?
 
Of the KMIs from my view in the ground - trying to move United bias away and be objective but also haven’t seen them all back on TV

Bruno should have been booked, Foden Red was correct, thought Enzo did enough to interfere with play and the Maguire push on Enzo, whilst stupid, wasn’t a pen as I think play had been stopped for the dive. And it’s on Enzo so all good for me.

Also looked like Oliver was playing as a defender at one point with how often he blocked it 😂

The truth with the offside is we weren’t good enough anyway, wouldn’t have been in that position without the Dorgu mistake, and then finish it off with losing to 10 men for the third time in a row…and it’s slightly concerning for us
 

JamesL said:
He is not..the semi automated visual proves he was in an onside position. Which is why the goal has been awarded.

To understand what's happend.

1 AR has indicated that Haaland is offside.

2 This is disproved by the SAOT.

3 They then make a judgment that Fernandez has not played the ball or interfered with an opponent.

4 Goal awarded.

It is point 3 where the questions arise from.
Click to expand...
How can they make a judgment that he didn’t attempt to play the ball when he took a diving header and was mm from the ball.

How can they make a judgement that he didn’t make an action which affected another player is beyond me.

Goal should not have stood.
 
Goldfish said:
This was not VARs decision to make. Enzo has to be assessed for interfering with an opponent. So the referee should have been sent to the monitor. To do that.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. The original OS decision based on H was deemed a clear error. So that is reversed. Not having identified Enzo is separate. The VAR has to believe there is clear error to recommend an on field review. The VAR never recommends the R go to the monitor to make a judgment.
 
bloovee said:
If Enzo was right there next to a defender he wouldn't have been in an offside position...
Click to expand...
Ignore me, I was replying to someone who was talking nonsense about it being a new phase due to a deliberate attempt to play the ball by a defender, and I assumed he must have been talking about Martinez who tried to get to the ball with Enzo as it was being crossed. He was talking about Dorgu's deflection which clearly wasn't remotely deliberate, and that's what confused me. I'd have deleted my post when I realised but couldn't work out how to...
 
The on field team should have explained why they didn't penalise Enzo. I am guessing they didn't think he did enough to impact the opponents, and VAR though it wasn't clear cut enough to recommend an on field review.
 
Last edited:
socal lurker said:
I don’t think so. The original OS decision based on H was deemed a clear error. So that is reversed. Not having identified Enzo is separate. The VAR has to believe there is clear error to recommend an on field review. The VAR never recommends the R go to the monitor to make a judgment.
Click to expand...
How do you know the original offside was just based on H, and not on both of them?

In real time I called them both offside, even though Enzo didn't get anything on the ball. I can accept Haaland being just onside due to Dorgu's outstretched foot, but Enzo was always offside and interfering with play as well...

Why do you think the AR wouldn't make the same conclusion? In which case it isn't a clear error?

Hypothetically the AR might even have flagged solely for Enzo if his eyesight was good enough to spot Dorgu's foot.

We won't know until Mr Webb releases some clarification.
 
dadofref said:
How do you know the original offside was just based on H, and not on both of them?

In real time I called them both offside, even though Enzo didn't get anything on the ball. I can accept Haaland being just onside due to Dorgu's outstretched foot, but Enzo was always offside and interfering with play as well...

Why do you think the AR wouldn't make the same conclusion? In which case it isn't a clear error?

Hypothetically the AR might even have flagged solely for Enzo if his eyesight was good enough to spot Dorgu's foot.

We won't know until Mr Webb releases some clarification.
Click to expand...
Minor language point here. He cannot be guilty of interfering with play as he did not play the ball.
 
RustyRef said:
Them being told to stay central doesn't help matters, much more risk of being hit by the ball in the middle of the pitch. I guess the counter argument is it doesn't really matter now as play is stopped if it happens, whereas in days gone by the ball hitting the referee could change a game.
Click to expand...
The ball hitting the ref can still change the game - in particular it can break up a promising attacking sequence or fast break.

It's less of an issue in chaotic defensive situations because it gives the defending team a chance to reset, and they can just punt it from the restart if all else fails!
 
JamesL said:
Minor language point here. He cannot be guilty of interfering with play as he did not play the ball.
Click to expand...
Apologies, interfering with an opponent then 🤪

Honestly I wish they would just simplify the rules instead of making them more and more complicated to try to deal with edge cases, which just creates more and more edge cases!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top