TUN vs FRA Matchday 10 - Conger (NZL)

[Russell Jones]

For the same reasons as @socal lurker and @Big Cat I'm in the Offside camp here. For those with the time and energy, here's a link to (some of) the videos circulated by IFAB at the time of the change.

https://red.fifa.com/play/video/13004/11FRA-CHINotdeliberateplay-heading?cId=16

The most relevant ones to this debate are probably numbers 11 and 12. As others have said, despite the written guidelines that @RustyRef correctly quotes, the video guidance is clear that in heading situations, unless the defender makes a complete balls up of the play for no good reason, the balance of probability is that this will be classed as an uncontrolled play and therefore non deliberate. Overall the shift of this "clarification" means that we are favouring the defenders far more than in previous years.

In other news, I'm very reliably led to believe (being in New Zealand helps!) that the referee was initially told (twice) by VAR that the play was clear and it was this that led to the confusion over play restarting

 

[Peter Grove]

The most relevant ones to this debate are probably numbers 11 and 12.

Wow - could hardly disagree more strongly. Both of those are examples where the defender got no more than a glancing touch on the ball, which skimmed off their head and continued on behind them with a minimal change in direction. Almost nothing like what happened here, where the defender headed the ball relatively successfully up in the air and away from goal.

For me, this is much closer to #9, where the defender makes a clearing header in the direction he wanted to, it just wasn't a good enough header that didn't go far enough and fell to an opponent.

Even if the overall direction of these new
guidelines is that we're favouring the defenders far more than previously (which I actually pretty much agree with) I think that to call this particular instance a non-deliberate play is pushing the envelope just a bit too far.

 

[Russell Jones]

Wow - could hardly disagree more strongly. Both of those are examples where the defender got no more than a glancing touch on the ball, which skimmed off their head and continued on behind them with a minimal change in direction. Almost nothing like what happened here, where the defender headed the ball relatively successfully up in the air and away from goal.

For me, this is much closer to #9, where the defender makes a clearing header in the direction he wanted to, it just wasn't a good enough header that didn't go far enough and fell to an opponent.

Even if the overall direction of these new
guidelines is that we're favouring the defenders far more than previously (which I actually pretty much agree with) I think that to call this particular instance a non-deliberate play is pushing the envelope just a bit too far.

And this is the challenge with the new guidance around deliberate / deflection Peter. Because you & I both know that it's exceptionally rare for the two of us to disagree on a Law interpretation! I agree that in the World Cup example, the defender made significantly more contact with the ball than in those two clips (11 & 12). However by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as a controlled play that went where he intended - unlike in Clip 9 where the ball clearly went in the direction the defender intended .. just, as you say, not as far as he hoped. I don't believe that the defender messed up the play yesterday, they did about as well as could be expected ... and the result was an UNCONTROLLED play --> Non deliberate based on the guidance.

Personally, for my taste, the pendulum has swung too far from favouring the attacker to favouring the defender. However, based on the IFAB & PGMOL guidance given over the last 5 months, I wasn't in the least surprised to see an offside given in this instance.

 

[santa sangria]

And this is the challenge with the new guidance around deliberate / deflection Peter. Because you & I both know that it's exceptionally rare for the two of us to disagree on a Law interpretation! I agree that in the World Cup example, the defender made significantly more contact with the ball than in those two clips (11 & 12). However by no stretch of the imagination could it be described as a controlled play that went where he intended - unlike in Clip 9 where the ball clearly went in the direction the defender intended .. just, as you say, not as far as he hoped. I don't believe that the defender messed up the play yesterday, they did about as well as could be expected ... and the result was an UNCONTROLLED play --> Non deliberate based on the guidance.

Personally, for my taste, the pendulum has swung too far from favouring the attacker to favouring the defender. However, based on the IFAB & PGMOL guidance given over the last 5 months, I wasn't in the least surprised to see an offside given in this instance.

The ball going where the defender intended is not part of the guidance from my reading. Understandably so.

 

[JamesL]

Video 10 is the most appropriate for me and I am in the deliberate play camp. 4/5 of the criteria are met.

 

[Therealcjhill]

@RustyRef has quoted the new criteria in full. There are five of them, and he has gone through them one by one, showing how they were not met here. As he says, the only one which comes close to being applicable is the one saying that a ball in the air is harder to control that a ball on the ground. But that's not really a hard and fast rule - it doesn't say (or mean) that any time a ball is in the air, there cannot be a deliberate play.

If you disagree with his analysis, perhaps you can explain which of the five criteria given by the IFAB are applicable, and means this is a deliberate play by the defender.

Yes This part..

it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control..

That’s exactly everything that happened in that header situation. And yes it could have easily been called a foul by ref.

By the way I’m not agreeing with it, I think this deliberate/not deliberate is a mess and horrible for refs.

 

[Therealcjhill]

Video 10 is the most appropriate for me and I am in the deliberate play camp. 4/5 of the criteria are met.

So in that case you’d agree 1 of the criteria wasn’t met, Would that not be enough for a not deliberate call.

 

[JamesL]

So in that case you’d agree 1 of the criteria wasn’t met, Would that not be enough for a not deliberate call.

Not for me. The clarification says the criteria should be used as appropriate.

The only one that doesnt work for me is

• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

But the strength or the other 4 outweigh this one, so I'm not using it, "as appropriate".

There are enough examples on the videos, such as video 10, that adds strength to the ball being in the air does not automatically mean it can't be a deliberate play.

 

[Therealcjhill]

Not for me. The clarification says the criteria should be used as appropriate.

The only one that doesnt work for me is

• A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

But the strength or the other 4 outweigh this one, so I'm not using it, "as appropriate".

There are enough examples on the videos, such as video 10, that adds strength to the ball being in the air does not automatically mean it can't be a deliberate play.

What about this part

it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control..

that would probably cover ifab. I’m also expecting them to come out and say, being challenged for the ball deems it non deliberate.

When I first watched all the videos when they released them I was more confused than before. It felt like ifab putting even more pressure on refs with grey areas.

 

[JamesL]

What about this part

it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control..

that would probably cover ifab. I’m also expecting them to come out and say, being challenged for the ball deems it non deliberate.

When I first watched all the videos when they released them I was more confused than before. It felt like ifab putting even more pressure on refs with grey areas.

It wasn't instinctive because he had a view of the ball and the time to coordinate his body, the direction of the ball wasn't unexpected and it wasn't moving very quickly.

Those factors are completely opposed to an instinctive movement

 

[garytheref]

Personally I don't understand why the referees have been getting involved in offsides anyway!!! It was always the remit of Assistant Referee to judge offside. Going down a slippery slope where any decision is the referees and tge assistants become redundent

 

[JamesL]

Personally I don't understand why the referees have been getting involved in offsides anyway!!! It was always the remit of Assistant Referee to judge offside. Going down a slippery slope where any decision is the referees and tge assistants become redundent

That's factually not true.
All final decisions rest with the referee. The assistant referee indicates when a player in an offside position mey be penalised. And then the referee stops play if he believes that the flag is correct.
There are times when it is appropriate for the referee and AR to communicate about a decision and then the referee decides if offence is committed or not. Good example of this is when a player interferes with an opponent by blocking their line of sight and impacts their ability to play the ball. This is not easily done with a side on view and requires referee input.
Same here, the referee,akes the final call on deliberate play or not.

 

[onthebrink]

I can't find the official IFAB statement on this but experience has shown that VAR can be used for game-changing incidents that occurred before the final whistle sounded, even if the referee is not informed till after the whistle had already gone.

There have been a number of such occurrences - it happened at the end of a Brighton vs Man United game in the 2020-21 season and in a Champions League game between Atletico Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen in January this year.

Atletico Madrid miss penalty awarded after the final whistle following VAR check

Yes, a reviewable incident can be changed after the full time whistle has been blown, as in the incidents you cite - although clearly the referee/VAR should really have the communication after a goal to avoid this.

But the problem here is if the referee has allowed Tunisia to kick-off as VAR protocol says a goal can't then be disallowed once play has restarted.

 

[Murri O]

Deliberate. Goal should have stood.

Had more than enough time and opportunity and got a massive touch to it. The fact it didn't go where he wanted it is neither here nor there IMO.

 

[OssieSC]

I can't find the official IFAB statement on this but experience has shown that VAR can be used for game-changing incidents that occurred before the final whistle sounded, even if the referee is not informed till after the whistle had already gone.

There have been a number of such occurrences - it happened at the end of a Brighton vs Man United game in the 2020-21 season and in a Champions League game between Atletico Madrid and Bayer Leverkusen in January this year.

Atletico Madrid miss penalty awarded after the final whistle following VAR check

This is correct and allowed, per law 5.2:

The referee may not change a restart decision on realising that is in correct or on the advice of another match official if play has restarted or the referee has signalled the end of the first or second half (including extra time) and left the field of play or abandoned the match. However, if at the end of the half, the referee leaves the field of play to go to the referee review area (RRA) or to instruct the platers to return to the field of play, this does not prevent a decision being changed for an incident which occurred before the end of the half.

The issue is here in the first part (in italics) as Conger allows the kick-off. He's allowed play to restart and cannot go back and take VAR advice except as per Principle 10 of the VAR Protocol which is:

10. If play has stopped and been restarted, the referee may not undertake a 'review' except for a case of mistaken identity or for a potential sending-off offence relating to violent conduct, spitting, biting or extremely offensive, insulting and/or abusive action(s).

This doesn't meet that principle unfortunately as it's a goal/no goal decision so the protocol has been applied incorrectly.

 

[Big Cat]

Must admit, taking all comments into account above, I don't honestly know (anymore) if the French goal was offside or not
My instinct at the time was pretty binary in terms of benefitting the defender, but there's enough conjecture in hindsight to cast a lot of doubt in my mind

 

[santa sangria]

The smart referee calls a foul on the defender

 

[santa sangria]

So, had play restarted with a kick off before the review?

If so, it’s a major mistake and strong grounds for appeal from France. Though FIFA are lucky as there was no material effect on the group standings. Does the draw vs win affect a co-efficient somewhere for future qualifiers… ?

 

[JamesL]

So, had play restarted with a kick off before the review?

If so, it’s a major mistake and strong grounds for appeal from France. Though FIFA are lucky as there was no material effect on the group standings. Does the draw vs win affect a co-efficient somewhere for future qualifiers… ?

It will affect FIFA rankings with games at majo tournaments having a greater weighting which I suppose then could have an effect on seeding...

 

[onthebrink]

So, had play restarted with a kick off before the review?

If so, it’s a major mistake and strong grounds for appeal from France. Though FIFA are lucky as there was no material effect on the group standings. Does the draw vs win affect a co-efficient somewhere for future qualifiers… ?

I believe VAR handbook says that in principle a result isn't invalid because of an error in VAR protocol, such as reviewing a non-reviewable incident Although I suppose it could be argued this is more a LOTG issue as decision was changed after restart? Let's see what FIFA do.

So, had play restarted with a kick off before the review?

If so, it’s a major mistake and strong grounds for appeal from France. Though FIFA are lucky as there was no material effect on the group standings. Does the draw vs win affect a co-efficient somewhere for future qualifiers… ?

I believe VAR handbook says in principle a result is not

So, had play restarted with a kick off before the review?

If so, it’s a major mistake and strong grounds for appeal from France. Though FIFA are lucky as there was no material effect on the group standings. Does the draw vs win affect a co-efficient somewhere for future qualifiers… ?

I believe VAR handbook says in principle a result is not invalid because of error in protocol, such as a review of non-reviewable incident. Although I suppose this might be considered more of a LOTG issue as decision has changed after restart? Let's see what FIFA do.