A&H

NLD

I'm sitting here thinking of the FL officials in my area saying, 'don't give unexpected decisions'. Give offside and no one questions it.
 
The Referee Store
Viking said:
I'm sitting here thinking of the FL officials in my area saying, 'don't give unexpected decisions'. Give offside and no one questions it.
Click to expand...

I've seen what a lot of fans and players expect. Most of them are morons. Doing what they think the laws are isn't the answer.
 
Law 11 is very clear on this ...

In situations where:
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

He was fouled before coming close to playing the ball, and can't have been challenging an opponent for the ball as it wasn't there at the time he was fouled, so penalty was correct.
 
JamesL said:
According to Alan Shearer PGMOL have confirmed otherwise.
I cant decide if he is challenging for the ball or not.
Click to expand...

The logic being used by Shearer and other pundits is that running in the direction of the drop zone is challenging for the ball, when you consider where the ball is at the time I don’t see how it is. I have a hypothetical example which I believe equates to a similar situation where the goal would always be given

- Free kick is taken from the same position, Son and Kane run towards the drop zone. Son offside, Kane onside. Just as the ball looks to drop to Son, Kane gets in ahead of him, heads the ball and scores. Goal is likely to be given but by Shearers Logic, goal should be disallowed
 
JamesL said:
Maybe semantics, but it says challenging an opponent for the ball, was Kane not challenging an opponent, for the ball that was headed his way?
Click to expand...
I would say not. He was simply (to use the wording of the Laws quoted by @RustyRef ) "moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball." At the time he was fouled, I don't think he's done anything that I would call "challenging an opponent" - all he's doing is waiting for the ball to arrive. It's the opponent that challenges him (and barges into him from behind) not the other way round, as far as I can tell.
 
RustyRef said:
Law 11 is very clear on this ...

In situations where:
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

He was fouled before coming close to playing the ball, and can't have been challenging an opponent for the ball as it wasn't there at the time he was fouled, so penalty was correct.
Click to expand...
Aka match officials get it right, pundits and ex-referees say wrong. Fans universally condemn officials as awful and the tired trope "this is why there were no English referees at the world cup" is touted all over twitter. PGMOL should have come out and explained the decision.
 
QuaverRef said:
The logic being used by Shearer and other pundits is that running in the direction of the drop zone is challenging for the ball, when you consider where the ball is at the time I don’t see how it is. I have a hypothetical example which I believe equates to a similar situation where the goal would always be given

- Free kick is taken from the same position, Son and Kane run towards the drop zone. Son offside, Kane onside. Just as the ball looks to drop to Son, Kane gets in ahead of him, heads the ball and scores. Goal is likely to be given but by Shearers Logic, goal should be disallowed
Click to expand...
Perfect analogy. Unless people want those situations disallowed, they need to accept this decision.
 
JH said:
Aka match officials get it right, pundits and ex-referees say wrong. Fans universally condemn officials as awful and the tired trope "this is why there were no English referees at the world cup" is touted all over twitter. PGMOL should have come out and explained the decision.
Click to expand...
They have though, perpetuating the problem.
 
Viking said:
I'm sitting here thinking of the FL officials in my area saying, 'don't give unexpected decisions'. Give offside and no one questions it.
Click to expand...

This is why it takes so long for changes to become the norm. Too many referees going by outdated standards because "that's what people expect." And by those refs continuing to do it the old way, people continue to expect referees not to follow the new changes/interpretations.
 
If people generally think that the Torreria tackle was anything other than a red card then i think they need to have a read through a certain book and maybe re-take a certain course.

Its 100% a red card, cant see any other decision here.
 
JamesL said:
Maybe semantics, but it says challenging an opponent for the ball, was Kane not challenging an opponent, for the ball that was headed his way? I seriously and right down the middle here and feel it could be argued both ways.
Click to expand...


And this is a massive problem, countless replays and yet its very much a 50/50 call.

What happens if that goes to VAR ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top