RefSix

Sterling offside vs Watford?

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#23
Just seen the MOTD coverage...

Embarrassing for the referee, looks to me like someone trying to be too clever and has ended up rolling in the dung

Embarrassing also for the 4th, been thrown right into the pigswill, having to try justify it to Watford manager when all he has to go on is what he is hearing down comms, instead of what he can tell from his own eyes.... 4th ends up being a mouthpiece and cartoon character, sounding board for the referee.

Embarrassing also (without fault) for the AR, giving a perfectly good flag, v the home team, the Champions, opening goal, getting it right then being wrongly over ruled.
 

Ben448844

RefChat Addict
#24
The AR got the decision right (City fan here). But then PT goes over and they no doubt begin to discuss the over complicated law and get weighed down in wording and interpretation and end up overturning what was w correct decision initially imo.

Earlier this week I made a point that the wording and interpretations of the laws are so lengthy and arbitrary that the referee could uphold his original decision of no handball, or overturn it as he did and the law allowed him to be correct either way. I believe the same applies here. The law is sat in such muddy water that you can correctly argue that the goal yesterday both should and shouldn't stand.

Crazy.
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#25
^^^ that was my point, the ref has tried to make do something clever and complicated over what in reality was a straight forward call *^^^

A good referee makes the difficult calls look easy, not the easy ones look difficult
 
Last edited:

WilliamD

Well-Known Member
#26
Interfering with an opponent is closely defined and jst as with gaining an advantage, the definition is not what is expected in everyday language
View attachment 3253
Did Sterling prevent the defender from playing the ball or directly challenge for the ball? I think not. Was the defender's touch deliberate? I think it was. Therefore, by the tightest of definitions of Law 11, was an offside offence committed? No

AR had 50% of the info, Ref had 50% of the info. There is no way Aidy Holmes could have seen the defender's touch on the ball.
I’m going with Brian in the miniority here and as someone said at the beginning of this thread, based on the complicated law you could probably argue on or off for this situation. I’m happy to go with offside after seeing it 10 times. It’s the part of the law that sees defenders cutting out a cross that is heading for an offside attacker many yards away - we don’t give offside there, and personally I would like to see the law changed so that these necessary interventions are called offside - but that’s not the law today. In this incident if Sterling was a few yards further away (but still in an offside position) the defender would of done the same thing and it would of been out for a corner and no question about being called offside. Now in reality he is closer so we have to use criteria above - you can’t say he prevented or even directly challenged because the defender got a solid hit on the ball and kicked it into Sterling. Those saying he was “challenging for the ball” would agree with my proposed law change because I agree it was necessary for the defender to get involved but it’s not really “preventing or directly challenging” IMHO.

[Bracing for impact]
 

Ciley Myrus

RefChat Addict
#28
I’m going with Brian in the miniority here and as someone said at the beginning of this thread, based on the complicated law you could probably argue on or off for this situation. I’m happy to go with offside after seeing it 10 times. It’s the part of the law that sees defenders cutting out a cross that is heading for an offside attacker many yards away - we don’t give offside there, and personally I would like to see the law changed so that these necessary interventions are called offside - but that’s not the law today. In this incident if Sterling was a few yards further away (but still in an offside position) the defender would of done the same thing and it would of been out for a corner and no question about being called offside. Now in reality he is closer so we have to use criteria above - you can’t say he prevented or even directly challenged because the defender got a solid hit on the ball and kicked it into Sterling. Those saying he was “challenging for the ball” would agree with my proposed law change because I agree it was necessary for the defender to get involved but it’s not really “preventing or directly challenging” IMHO.

[Bracing for impact]
Ok, I for one understand your sentiments. Can I make it relative to most of us today, tomorrow or yesterday on our game though.
As AR, 99, if not 100 of us, are flagging and the ref is taking it. Case open and closed, as if nothing happened.
As referee ourselves out there, as i suspect most of us are/were yesterday.....its offside 101 times out of 100

I also very strongly suspect (without hinting at bias), but, had that been the other way round, then, offside. Its instantly forgettable to give offside v Watford there.
There is also no way on earth that ref does that at say Utd v Liverpool, to the away team

Its a referee trying to be far too clever, trying to fit the decision around the law, instead of making the law fit around the decision

Yes, you can make it onside. But the other 99 times you can make it offside. So why be the other 1 ????
 

bloovee

Well-Known Member
#30
Interfering with an opponent is closely defined and jst as with gaining an advantage, the definition is not what is expected in everyday language
View attachment 3253
Did Sterling prevent the defender from playing the ball or directly challenge for the ball? I think not. Was the defender's touch deliberate? I think it was. Therefore, by the tightest of definitions of Law 11, was an offside offence committed? No

AR had 50% of the info, Ref had 50% of the info. There is no way Aidy Holmes could have seen the defender's touch on the ball.
I'd happily go with this! Challenging for the ball is only a factor if it prevents the opponent playing the ball and the opponent obviously was not prevented from playing the ball.

Much less fuss of course about all the more clear cut offside goals Liverpool have scored this season....

And I liked Pep's saying it should have been given offside - then adding that City voted for VAR this season and other clubs vetoed it...
 

bloovee

Well-Known Member
#32
I'm not sure you are refereeing using the same law bookkeeping as I am ;)
That's what my book says.

A player in an offside position ... is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by .... interfering with an opponent by … preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by ... challenging an opponent for the ball.

Challenging for the ball does not make a player offside - preventing the opponent from playing the ball does. But the opponent was able to play the ball.

The next question will be whether VAR gives "what football expects" or what the letter of the law says.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#33
And my book says:

"If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent... , the referee must award a penalty kick... in such cases"

Just like you I removed a few words (or a few pages) to completely change what the laws intended.
 
#34
A player in an offside position ... is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by .... interfering with an opponent by … preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by ... challenging an opponent for the ball.
No, you've misquoted that. The full section (starting from "interfering") is:
interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
• challenging an opponent for the ball
Challenging for the ball is a separate bullet point and a separate clause from the previous one which refers to obstructing the opponent's line of vision. Challenging an opponent does not have to prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.

If the section read:

"interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or by challenging an opponent for the ball"

Then you would be correct - but it doesn't.

Each clause is to be taken separately - that's why they're written separately. So what the law is saying, is that a player is to be penalised for:

"interfering with an opponent by: [...] challenging an opponent for the ball" - whether that prevents an opponent from playing the ball or not.
 

one

RefChat Addict
#35
No, you've misquoted that. The full section (starting from "interfering") is:


Challenging for the ball is a separate bullet point and a separate clause from the previous one which refers to obstructing the opponent's line of vision. Challenging an opponent does not have to prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.

If the section read:

"interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or by challenging an opponent for the ball"

Then you would be correct - but it doesn't.

Each clause is to be taken separately - that's why they're written separately. So what the law is saying, is that a player is to be penalised for:

"interfering with an opponent by: [...] challenging an opponent for the ball" - whether that prevents an opponent from playing the ball or not.
Somehow I think he knows he has misquoted the law @Peter Grove. And I also think that he knows that we know :)

He might think he is being clever but its not helpful to newer referees or those who use this forum as a learning tool.
 
Last edited:

bloovee

Well-Known Member
#36
No, you've misquoted that. The full section (starting from "interfering") is:


Challenging for the ball is a separate bullet point and a separate clause from the previous one which refers to obstructing the opponent's line of vision. Challenging an opponent does not have to prevent an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball.

If the section read:

"interfering with an opponent by:
• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or by challenging an opponent for the ball"

Then you would be correct - but it doesn't.

Each clause is to be taken separately - that's why they're written separately. So what the law is saying, is that a player is to be penalised for:

"interfering with an opponent by: [...] challenging an opponent for the ball" - whether that prevents an opponent from playing the ball or not.
I'll give in on that. I like to think I've usually read it right but the bullet points got me between the eyes on that.
 
#37
That's what my book says.

A player in an offside position ... is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by .... interfering with an opponent by … preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by ... challenging an opponent for the ball.

Challenging for the ball does not make a player offside - preventing the opponent from playing the ball does. But the opponent was able to play the ball.

The next question will be whether VAR gives "what football expects" or what the letter of the law says.
I wish people would stop portraying 'VAR' as some mythical 'perfect' beast - its going to be Mr Tiernay, along with all his colleagues!

Soooooo, if ione of his colleagues on the fop on Saturday gave the same decision and Mr T was at Stockley Park, chances are same decision would have been made!
 
#38
Is there a definition of challenging for the ball from the IFAB, i.e. how close does the attacker need to be to the defender to be considered to be challenging?
 

socal lurker

Well-Known Member
#40
Had a play a bit like this in my game this—fortunately he ball went out of play. I flagged for the challenge by an OSP player; referee waived me down saying he didn’t play the ball. We had a good discussion about it at HT.
 
Top