A&H

Spain Vs Scotland

The Referee Store
Keeper is nowhere near it nor appealing for a foul...feels harsh as a 'clear and obvious error'
 
UEFA have reported the goal was disallowed for offside and not a foul. That is not what the referee signalled or what was produced on the stadium screen.

UEFA should be careful their post match clarification is credible.
 
DJIC said:
UEFA have reported the goal was disallowed for offside and not a foul. That is not what the referee signalled or what was produced on the stadium screen.

UEFA should be careful their post match clarification is credible.
Click to expand...
Already feels like gaslighting
 
At the time the ball was played the attacker certainly wasn't interfering with the keeper, it cannot be offside.

I've said this before, don't put too much weight on what Dale Johnson says. He is a journalist, and he seems to get most things right in the EPL when it comes to VAR, but does anyone think he has sources in both the EPL and UEFA? I think it is more that he understands the laws, which most journalists don't, and has made an effort to understand VAR, and therefore his comments come across as credible.
 
RustyRef said:
At the time the ball was played the attacker certainly wasn't interfering with the keeper, it cannot be offside.

I've said this before, don't put too much weight on what Dale Johnson says. He is a journalist, and he seems to get most things right in the EPL when it comes to VAR, but does anyone think he has sources in both the EPL and UEFA? I think it is more that he understands the laws, which most journalists don't, and has made an effort to understand VAR, and therefore his comments come across as credible.
Click to expand...
But does he interfere with the goalkeeper at any point after the ball is kicked?
Dale Johnson uses the phrase 'At a guess' in his tweets about the incident so I think it's fair to say he doesn't especially have inside information on this but is presumably making logical interpretations from what is known. I think he does have sources of some kind for many of his PL columns. Do you think it was a foul? If so, then presumably offside is also a possible consideration.
 
I think this is a difficult one because it looks offside but at no point in real time was either the on field decision or review suggesting offside. The referee was sent to the monitor to look at a potential foul. If he’d then realised it was offside from doing that and given that decision, it would be understandable- but he then proceeded to give a foul and a DFK anyway, only for UEFA to claim afterwards that the decision was offside.
 
RustyRef said:
At the time the ball was played the attacker certainly wasn't interfering with the keeper, it cannot be offside.
Click to expand...

You're better than that rusty!

Signals are poor from the referee if it's offside. Certainly not enough there for a foul for me.

Offside is debatable. Need lines to see if in offside position, it's very very close. Then need to determine if the obvious action, IE the very minor hand touching the keeper (that was not enough for law 12 offence imo) clearly impacted the goal keepers ability to play the ball.
 
What about the Scotland #9 being clearly held? That is happening before any offside offence occurs, so the correct decision would be a penalty if the goal cannot be given for offside?
 
Whoever the Spanish pundit was on Viaplay did mention that the referee did stick his hand up in the air (ie IDFK) but you had to be in the ground to see it as no TV cameras showed it. So it may well have just been a screw up with the referee’s initial signal, which whilst poor is understandable and explains some of the confusion.
I personally think calling it interference though is harsh - if Jack Hendry is even offside which looks incredibly tight - but I can accept it. There is never a foul in there though IMO.
 
JamesL said:
Offside is debatable. Need lines to see if in offside position, it's very very close. Then need to determine if the obvious action, IE the very minor hand touching the keeper (that was not enough for law 12 offence imo) clearly impacted the goal keepers ability to play the ball.
Click to expand...
Just seen this on Twitter, definitely looks highly debatable for offside. If this is reviewed as an offside incident with lines drawn it’s not causing any problems and the correct decision would be certain. The fact no lines were drawn, as far as I’m aware, is what is most infuriating.

 
SammyT5 said:
Just seen this on Twitter, definitely looks highly debatable for offside. If this is reviewed as an offside incident with lines drawn it’s not causing any problems and the correct decision would be certain. The fact no lines were drawn, as far as I’m aware, is what is most infuriating.
Click to expand...
Source: Dale Johnson
20231013_121539.jpg
 
JamesL said:
You're better than that rusty!

Signals are poor from the referee if it's offside. Certainly not enough there for a foul for me.

Offside is debatable. Need lines to see if in offside position, it's very very close. Then need to determine if the obvious action, IE the very minor hand touching the keeper (that was not enough for law 12 offence imo) clearly impacted the goal keepers ability to play the ball.
Click to expand...
In my defence I'd been out at a gig and may have had a few sherberts 🍺

Still not having that as offside though. He isn't preventing the keeper from seeing or playing the ball, and the crucial thing for me is there isn't a single appeal by any Spanish players. I think they have just created an issue that didn't exist here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top