socal lurker
RefChat Addict
what they have typically avoided is discussion of non-interventions. I can see why they do it, but wouldn’t mind if they took on more than that. But does anyone else in the world do more on this than MLS?
Palace V Liverpool
- Thread starter JamesL
- Start date
what they have typically avoided is discussion of non-interventions. I can see why they do it, but wouldn’t mind if they took on more than that. But does anyone else in the world do more on this than MLS?
Only CONMEBOL.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I can see why the pen was given but I do not like it. Keeper takes a big risk going to ground so early, sliding when the ball isn’t playable. But Jota moved into him. I think this should be interpreted as contact initiated by the attacker.
i also think Firminio should have been given offside. For me his action clearly impacted the defender’s ability to play the ball. (Guy next to me is jumping for the ball, I must pressure him…)
i also think Firminio should have been given offside. For me his action clearly impacted the defender’s ability to play the ball. (Guy next to me is jumping for the ball, I must pressure him…)
I do hope there is clarity from IFAB/PGMOL on this because like you say, the refs body language did suggest he was not happy he had to overturn his decision. In theory there should be no overturns at the monitor as it should be a clear and obvious error but this wasn't, the ref had the perfect view, what on earth could he of missed for the VAR to recommend a review!?
This was the perfect example where the on field ref should of said no im sticking with my decision but if those upstairs don't allow that(or strongly discourage it) then the referees hands are tied which is just wrong really.
Possibly in real time (we've all given those) but with the benefit of replays/VAR I can't see any justification for a penalty here.
With you completely on the penalty - contact initiated by the attacker was my thought live and nothing I saw on any replay changed my mind on that. It's a real shame you had Carragher going on and on about the idea that it shouldn't be given because Jota wasn't going to reach the ball, that's a classic law fallacy and he reiterated it over and over while the VAR review was going on.
Disagree with you on Firmino though. It's the issue with the laws using words like "interfered" and then making up a definition that doesn't actually match what we think of that word to mean. Under the law, for him to be offside he would have to actually physically stop the defender playing the ball - it's well established that the defender making a different decision because you're there is not sufficient to count as impacting.
Well you did have Taylor, Oliver, and Attwell attending some pre-World cup seminar in Qatar. Then you had a relegation battle with Norwich, the efl cup semifinal on Thursday, and a couple other important games to this weekend.
Not correct. Yes, certainly, in general a defender cannot claim that their decision making was affected by a PIOP. But we are now discussing not just being there, but actually interfering. There are four definitions of interfering in the Laws: two of them are not relevant here (line of vision and challenging for the ball); but the two others are often mixed up. A PIOP who ends up "Making an obvious action" does certainly mean physically preventing a defender getting to the ball...but this case surely falls under "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close" which only needs to "impact" an opponent in some way. This was added mainly for when a PIOP swings at the ball and the keeper dives but the player does not contact ball: but it can surely also apply here.
one
RefChat Addict
For me, this is a chicken or the egg argument. Do we have the concept of offside and then the words in law to explain it? Or do we have the word in law then the concept of offside.
For me it's the former. And the words to explain the concept can be flawed. This should not come as surprise to anyone. From memory "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close" has never been used in a situation like this, even though it could, because it is not within the concept of offside. @GraemeS explained this and it was also recently discussed in another thread with video examples.
If we were to apply that clause here then we can also apply it if the defender choose to stop and do nothing because he thought Firmino would touch the ball. For me this was not meant to be as part of the concept of offside and a by product of poor explanation in laws.
For me it's the former. And the words to explain the concept can be flawed. This should not come as surprise to anyone. From memory "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close" has never been used in a situation like this, even though it could, because it is not within the concept of offside. @GraemeS explained this and it was also recently discussed in another thread with video examples.
If we were to apply that clause here then we can also apply it if the defender choose to stop and do nothing because he thought Firmino would touch the ball. For me this was not meant to be as part of the concept of offside and a by product of poor explanation in laws.
I think I need to say the alternative in both situations.
1) Jota tries to chip the ball to the right, gets the wrong connection but to me it looks like he's already decided to move to the right. Now surely if a defender does the same thing and comes sliding in uncontrolled with out any way of touching the ball it would be a foul? If Jota didn't decide to move right then he would still have got hit and so it's foul right?
2) You can see even before the ball is kicked the defender has decided to move towards Firmino. If he had decided to stay with Ox and then moved to Firmino after the ball was kicked and seen that he was in an off side position then I'd agree but he's already ghone to challenge Firmino (and to be honest he was nowhere near the ball anyway) so Firmino being there doesn't affect the play surely?
My concern now with all the negative commentary is that do Liverpool now get impacted with poor decisions as there will probably be a lot of added pressure put on the match officials at each game that Liverpool play in. It seems that way with Spurs after they got away with a few recent fouls that small pushes like Kane's today are deemed fouls where it made no difference to the way the defender acted.
As I said before though it hasn't impacted the defender. Mitchell has left Oxlade-Chamberlain well before Firminho makes any move for the ball, and every single left back in the Premier League would have done exactly the same. You don't stay marking someone wide when there is a player free in front of goal. Had Firminho not jumped the outcome would have been exactly the same as at the time he jumps Oxlade-Chamberlain was already completely unmarked. There was zero chance of Mitchell heading the ball, it was way too high, so I just don't see how it can be argued that Mitchell was in any way impacted. With Firminho jumping the ball is going to Oxlade-Chamberlain who scores, if he doesn't jump exactly the same happens.
I don't know if this is because I played at full back, but I can 100% say that a full back even at Sunday League level would never stay out wide and leave a player totally unmarked in the middle in that situation, you just don't do it.
deusex
RefChat Addict
If Firminho isn't there Mitchell isn't challenging Firminho and is EASILY getting across to Ox.
There is an argument above over whether this constitutes offside by the current laws, but Firminho absolutely without question had an affect on the defender.
It isn't whether him being there had an affect on Mitchel, it is whether his action of attempting to play the ball had an impact as it isn't an offence to stand in an offside position. At the time he jumps Mitchell has already left Oxlade-Chamberlain and is stood right next to Firminho.
deusex
RefChat Addict
I think I see what your saying. That Ox having to be in the area where Firminho is before and during the cross doesn't matter, all that matters is when Firinho heads it did it THEN affect an oppenent.
I would still say yes.
At this moment all his attention is focused on an offside player who is "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts
on an opponent".
Can we even take the distance Ox is away into the equation? I'm not sure we can.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I think this gilding the lilly.
It’s like saying “the goalkeeper was never gonna save that anyway”
I’ve played CB, LB and in goal and if Firminio is obviously not attempting to play the ball, then I can go to the back stick and try to block, intercept etc. As Firminio does obviously prepare and attempt to play the ball, my attention as a defender or goalkeeper is drawn to him and I move accordingly.
I’m a Liverpool fan from Brighton and I love nothing more than Palace conceding and losing at home.
I was fully expecting this to be given offside. Bobby is what 30mm from contacting the ball right in front of goal with a dramatic leap from an offside position.
Like the VAR on the day, we can cherry pick excuses why not to call this but my interpretation is it’s an offence. I think football expects an offence - I got a flood of messages! (Well, two from bitter Spurs fans) - in the end I am sure football expects an offence here and for good reason.
That is still in serious doubt though. Mitchell can't wait until Firminho goes to play the ball and then race over as he wouldn't get anywhere near him. As soon as the ball was played in he left Oxlade-Chamberlain to cover inside, and again I reiterate the outcome would have 100% been identical whether Firminho had jumped or not. If I was coaching and my left back stayed on a player well out wide and left a player in the middle of goal with a free header he would be getting hooked at the first possible opportunity, it just doesn't happen.
If we had a position where PGMOL published the audio for VAR decisions I would be certain this was the reason they didn't give offside, sadly we don't have that.
one
RefChat Addict
I think you are giving them too much credit for using this as the reason. Given some of the VAR decisions I have seen, I'd say gut feel is more like it
deusex
RefChat Addict
With respect, you cannot have ever played centre half at even Sunday League level.
If Firminho doesn't jump, neither does the defender.
He then had a split second more to get across to Ox and (considering how close he got) he prob makes the block/puts off Ox.