The Ref Stop

Stoke vs Man Utd

frank_ref

frank_ref

Well-Known Member
Nobody's talked about this one as far as I can tell but, for me, the Man Utd goal should have been offside. No question that Welbeck's in an offside position as the ball is played back in and, for me, the Stoke defender's only played it because he knows he's there, otherwise why not let it run through to the keeper? I'd say that's interfering with play.

There was another one like this a few weeks back. Again, nothing mentioned. I know the laws have changed on this but I'd still be calling that. Or are we expecting defenders to override their natural instincts to intercept, trust linos, and take varying interpretations of the laws into account, all in a split second in the heat of the action?
 
The Ref Stop
Remembered the other one: it was the first goal in Utd's 2-0 win against Swansea on the 11th. Januzaj's cross comes in and Valencia, in an offside position, is within a foot of the Swansea defender whose header flicks to a Utd played at the back post, balls comes back in, Valencia scores.

Again, I'd say Valencia is interfering with the defender from the initial cross and there should have been a flag there.

Haven't got anything against United, by the way. ;-)
 
frank_ref said:
I know the laws have changed on this but I'd still be calling that.
Click to expand...

Old dog, new tricks ;)

edit to add - just watched it for the first time. No way is that offside, imho.

40 secs in

 
Last edited:
frank_ref said:
Nobody's talked about this one as far as I can tell but, for me, the Man Utd goal should have been offside. No question that Welbeck's in an offside position as the ball is played back in and, for me, the Stoke defender's only played it because he knows he's there, otherwise why not let it run through to the keeper? I'd say that's interfering with play.

There was another one like this a few weeks back. Again, nothing mentioned. I know the laws have changed on this but I'd still be calling that. Or are we expecting defenders to override their natural instincts to intercept, trust linos, and take varying interpretations of the laws into account, all in a split second in the heat of the action?
Click to expand...

Nope, under Law, Wellbeck was in an offside position, but not only did he NOT challenge for the ball, he came back onside for the next phase of play.

'Interfering with play' is quite well defined in the good book and the new wording hasn't made much of a difference the way I read it.
 
frank_ref said:
Agreed. "If the player distracts an opponent [an infringement has taken place]." I still say in both those examples the defender was "distracted" by the attacking player.
Click to expand...

The laws no longer say anything about distracting an opponent, it was removed this year. So although Wellbeck was in an offside position, as he didn't:
  • Touch the ball
  • Prevent an opponent from playing the ball (by physically challenging them or being directly in line of vision)
  • Gain an advantage from being in that position (as define in LOTG)
He committed no offence and therefore this is a great example of a non flag by the assistant and the goal correctly stood.
 
You cant really be saying that defenders are intelligent enough to know who is offside and i what phase etc etc. They play the ball because thats what they are there to do. I dont think a defender would gamble and just leave the ball thinking the attacker may or may not be in an offside position. Therefore the game flows a lot more. Not offside
 
ASM said:
The laws no longer say anything about distracting an opponent, it was removed this year. So although Welbeck was in an offside position, as he didn't:
  • Touch the ball
  • Prevent an opponent from playing the ball (by physically challenging them or being directly in line of vision)
  • Gain an advantage from being in that position (as define in LOTG)
he committed no offence and therefore this is a great example of a non flag by the assistant and the goal correctly stood.
Click to expand...

Well that's from the interpretation of/guidelines to the law rather than the law itself:

"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
  • interfering with play or
  • interfering with an opponent or
  • gaining an advantage by being in that position"
Were Welbeck/Valencia doing one or more of the above in the Stoke/Swansea games? I'd say yes.

Still, if the interpretation of the law is as valid as the actual wording of the law then I'd have to concede that they weren't infringing after all. I guess it's not really clear: if the interpretation IS the law then why don't they just write "touches the ball" instead of "interfering with play"? Seems like a redundancy.

Also, with regard to the unlikely situation of an attacker in the goal net when a goal is scored, according to the guidelines/interpretation "being there" is not an offence but "distracting an opponent is". How does that tally with the above? How were Valencia/Welbeck not "distracting an opponent"?

Even though we disagree on these situations - we'll just have to shake hands and say, "if I'd been on the line I'd have flagged and you wouldn't" - I'm sure you'll admit that the wording still isn't one hundred percent clear, and there's room in the laws and guidelines for both our interpretations.

Final point: if either lino had flagged for offside in those two situations do you think anybody would have objected?
 
frank_ref said:
Still, if the interpretation of the law is as valid as the actual wording of the law then I'd have to concede that they weren't infringing after all.
Click to expand...

In the F.A. Basic Referees Course Learner Resource Pack that I have, from January 2013, it says the following about the 'Application of the LOTG'

The International FA Board (IFAB) is of the opinion that the Laws should be kept as simple and as straightforward as possible and that differences of application should be resolved by 'rulings or decisions', rather than by further definitions of Law.

IFAB consists of the four British Associations and FIFA. It meets annually and its decisions are binding on all National Associations.

IFAB has reminded all National Associations that it is their duty to ensure the strict application of the LOTG by referees and players

Consistent Law interpretation and application must be achieved.
 
ref craig said:
The second stoke goal I think that was offside as his obstructing the view of de gea
Click to expand...
Not obstructing, imho, but very similar to newcastle disallowed goal - except De Gea did dive and didn't complain to the referee
 
Southampton's second goal against Tottenham the other day (play from about 1.18):


I can't make up my mind 100% about that one but I really want to say it's offside. Definitely the two nearest attacking players are offside when the ball is played in and, in my mind, the defender has a totally different set of options if they're not there. He can take his time. He can let it run through. He doesn't know whether maybe the right-back is playing them on.

In my book, that's interfering. Yet I'm guessing I'm alone in this.

Ah well: one-man crusade. ;)
 
Last edited:
Not for me. This is a prime example of the importance of the change to offside this year.

The Southampton players do not physically challenge the defender and are not in the players line of vision in terms of him being able to see the ball - they do not therefore interfere with an opponent.

The defender then makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball (but just does it very badly). This isn't a rebound/deflection nor is it a deliberate save - therefore gaining an advantage is not a consideration.

No offside offence is committed.
 
frank_ref said:
Are you saying last year it would have been offside?
Click to expand...
No, even last year I don't think it was offside. However, the changes this year taken any ambiguity out as the laws no longer make any reference to "distracting or deceiving an opponent" and also clarify the law in relation to deflections from opponent.
 
ASM said:
The laws no longer make any reference to "distracting or deceiving an opponent."
Click to expand...

From the interpretation of Law 11:
LOTG said:
'In the context of Law 11 – Offside, “interfering with an opponent” means, amongst other things, making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. “Gaining an advantage by being in that position” means, amongst other things, playing a ball that rebounds off an opponent having been in an offside position.'
Click to expand...

Also:
LOTG said:
'If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the goal net as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded. However, if the attacking player distracts an opponent, the goal must be disallowed.'
Click to expand...

So, as we can see, there are still references to "distracting an opponent" and I think I can find justification in Law to flag offside on the above examples, perhaps with the exception of the Southampton one. Though only "perhaps".

But I take your point: the pros aren't flagging 'em and they know what they're doing. I'm in a minority of one and need to get with the times. Or, at least, will get with the times when I'm up there reffing with the big boys.

Though by then maybe the Law will have changed back to something I agree with. ;)
 
The quotes above are from last season's LOTG not this year's hence why I said it was far clearer now.

LOTG 2013/14 p108 said:
“interfering with an opponent” means 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
Click to expand...
.
 
How about the push by the spurs player on the so'ton defender (around 3:42) which led to the spurs equaliser?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top