Seeing everyone hounding the officials. Do you think it was an error or does anyone think he was interfering with play? I see that the keeper has actually hesitated because he thinks the offside player will go for it, so does that mean he’s interfered in your opinion? Can’t seem to find a video, but watch the keeper stop diving as the ball flies past the offside player
I don't think it's as bad a decision as everyone is saying but I *do* think the goal should stand and that Austin wasn't offside.
The key thing for me within the LOTG as they stand is that influencing (which is what happened here) is not the same thing as interfering. Looking at all the considerations, I am struggling to find one for which Austin could be penalised.
Now, I happen to think that this sort of incident *should* be offisde - but under the current parameters of the LOTG, I don't really think you can justify it.
The key thing for me within the LOTG as they stand is that influencing (which is what happened here) is not the same thing as interfering. Looking at all the considerations, I am struggling to find one for which Austin could be penalised.
Now, I happen to think that this sort of incident *should* be offisde - but under the current parameters of the LOTG, I don't really think you can justify it.
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
If the ref-liner has given it because he thinks the player is interfering with the GK then so be it, if he thinks the player has touched the ball then thats a huge error.
The only offence it could be is against Yoshida:
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts
on an opponent or"
Now he doesnt attempt to play it but there is a possibility Foster is impacted as he thinks Yoshida might play it or it might hit him..
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts
on an opponent or"
Now he doesnt attempt to play it but there is a possibility Foster is impacted as he thinks Yoshida might play it or it might hit him..
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
I could accept that if its been chalked off for that reason, surely he doesn't think Yoshida has actually touched the ball though.
No. He doesnt have to.
This was one of the main changes to law 11 2-3 years ago where if a player, whom from an offside position, attempted to touch the ball but didn't, and this impacted on the keeper then he would still be deemed to have committed an offence.
Although, what Yoshida did doesnt quite fit, I can see how one might arrive at the offside decision.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
For me, the refs' inexperience at this level is telling, he is perhaps understandably going to take advice from the AR here
Its a bad error for me, I can accept the AR offering advice on what he has seen but the ref should be tuned in enough to say, thanks for that, the goal is good (and that's for whether player touched ball AND/OR was interfering with gk)
Its a bad error for me, I can accept the AR offering advice on what he has seen but the ref should be tuned in enough to say, thanks for that, the goal is good (and that's for whether player touched ball AND/OR was interfering with gk)
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
Is there then an argument to say any player in between the goal posts is in fact interfering with the goalkeepers view ?
Not really. Has to be line of sight to impact the goalies ability to play the ball. Like I say the only thing it could possibly be is an attempt to play impacting by Yoshida. He certainly was close to it.
Not sure if the PL will be having a word? 
He had a poor game I thought. Missed a penalty as well, wasn't in the right place for it.
I feel sorry for him though, we all have bad days, and that was his.
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Sometimes as well you need a bit of luck......yes the pk looked a pk, but, disallowing Southamptons 2nd goal, he must have been praying the other team never scored, it would still be a huge error, but, largely over looked. Because of course it finishes 1-1 its a huge talking point
On the other extreme, Antony Taylor's (if we are convinced he played advantage), is a stroke of good luck,
Sometimes things go for you, sometimes they don't....
On the other extreme, Antony Taylor's (if we are convinced he played advantage), is a stroke of good luck,
Sometimes things go for you, sometimes they don't....
PinnerPaul
RefChat Addict
Not sure if the PL will be having a word?
Yes amazingly neither Charlie or Mark Hughes mentioned the stone wall pen not given to the oppo!
Surely this is just as bad, if not, worse as Jansson!Not sure if the PL will be having a word?
I saw him at the Norwich vs Leeds game this season and thought he was brilliant, so I’m sure this is just a one off
Peter Grove
RefChat Addict
Absolutely, definitely not interfering with play (although that's apparently what the officials thought).
LotG Law 11 tells us that, "interfering with play [means] playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate."
He definitely did not touch the ball - although as I alluded to above, the commentators on the channel I was watching said they'd "heard from the touch line" that the officials thought Yoshida had touched the ball on the way through.
No. That's like asking, "Is there an argument for saying that any player in an offside position is in fact interfering with play?" Unless the player touches the ball, he isn't interfering with play. Unless he is "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" he isn't interfering with an opponent.
Again, no. As the law is currently written, and as the IFAB have been at pains to make clear, influencing what an opponent might think is not enough for it to be an offside offence. It has to have an impact on the opponent's actual ability to play the ball.
Doesnt happen very often. But I am going to disagree on this occasion.
The wording "clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an
opponent"
I am going to add the or bit as it shows there is clearly a distinction between impacting and opponent, and impacting their ability to play the ball
"or
makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to
play the ball"
Was introduced, I believe 15/16.
A further clarification was issued by ifab to say that. This can be found on their website.
‘impact’ applies to an opponent’s ability (or potential) to play the ball and will
include situations where an opponent’s movement to play the ball is delayed,
hindered or prevented by the offside player.
A player in an offside position attempting to play the ball that is close to him, but does not, but doing so delays the keepers movement commits an offside offence.
I dont believe this part of law 11 has changed since its introduction.
I am not saying the officials were correct I was just offering a potential reasoning as to how they arrived at the decision.
Austin doesn't attempt to play the ball though, he ducks out of the way? His virtue of being in that position is still not enough in law for me to warrant such a decision.