Utd v villereal
- Thread starter Ryanj91
- Start date
1) he was not in the line of sight of the goalkeeper so he did not impact keepers ability to play the ball
2) go for the offside and united get a pen anyway for the foul On Lingard, which is the reason he ended up there anyway.
Yes I can see that. But he is not in the line of sight and he is not impacting the keeper ability to play ball. Proven by the fact he plays the ball on the way through to it going in the goal.
Also basic principle of law 11:
A player right in front of you will interfere with play though.
If that was the Premier league, they'd have disallowed it like on previous occasions, so you are suggesting different rules for the PL v Uefa?
Just very frustrating how the inconsistency is ridiculous.
Last year Lacazette was ruled as offside for being 1m behind the keeper at the back post against Leicester. This season we have already seen goals disallowed for players being 'near' keepers
I strongly reccomend you read law 11 and understand what meaning of interferes with play or an opponent and then ask yourself honestly, without prejudice of any other decison what offence Lingard commits. I think you will find that the answer is none
Of course not. Where have I suggested that?
I dont believe they would have. The ones we have seen disallowed have been very clear stood directly in front of keeper impacting their view and their ability to play the ball.
I thought the villa goal against united should have been given as offside but wasnt and I think that decision Contradicts your post massively.
As above. Inconsistency has been rife in football for many years. Even in the PL.
Can't recall or haven't seen it but would reiterate not offence to be offside
An offence is play the ball, interfere with play or an opponent (which includes impacting opponent ability to play the ball) and gaining an advantage.
None of which lingard does. It's a good goal.
And of course, even if you disagree, in reviewing the offside you'd have to come away with a PK for lingard anyway for the foul, the exact reason he was lay in the position he was anyway.
one
RefChat Addict
@Ryanj91 it somewhat appears to me you are looking at this from a fan's viewpoint with some knowledge of the laws of the game. That is what is creating the type of frustration you have.
Looking at it from a referee view point would give you a different type of frustration. Buu you would understand that there are many subjective decisions in football. That is part of its beauty. This means inconsistent decisions. It can not be avoided.
For what it's worth, I don't think the goal was offside either.
Looking at it from a referee view point would give you a different type of frustration. Buu you would understand that there are many subjective decisions in football. That is part of its beauty. This means inconsistent decisions. It can not be avoided.
For what it's worth, I don't think the goal was offside either.
Fair itootr.
Not a fan of stills but its all I have to demonstrate why I think it's a foul...
1st still shows how far away the defender is when he starts the challenge
2nd here shows that after the ball he takes lingard down who was having to try and jump out of the way.
I wouldn't say clear and obvious error. I'm not asking VAR to get involved BAU. But you go to look at the offside you also have to check this too and, in my opinion, that's a careless challenge and trumps the offside (that's not an offside
)
If you don't like stills, don't post'emFair itootr.
Not a fan of stills but its all I have to demonstrate why I think it's a foul...
View attachment 5199
1st still shows how far away the defender is when he starts the challenge
View attachment 5200
2nd here shows that after the ball he takes lingard down who was having to try and jump out of the way.
I wouldn't say clear and obvious error. I'm not asking VAR to get involved BAU. But you go to look at the offside you also have to check this too and, in my opinion, that's a careless challenge and trumps the offside (that's not an offside
Anyway, we're agreed on the main point of contention, so we can both sleep well tonight
Yes but I also thought foul with out looking at stills in real time. As I said it was all I had to demonstrate what I am seeing.If you don't like stills, don't post'em
Anyway, we're agreed on the main point of contention, so we can both sleep well tonight
I agree with Big Cat, don't see any foul there as its actually Lingards foot hitting the defenders leg although I'm sure Lingard putting his hands on his head could be an indication to alert the officials a possible foul has been committed. Of course he could be protecting his head from Ronaldo's shot also.
As for offside/interfearing with the GK, I think your heading down a rocky road if that is deemed as interfearing with play. Although as it happens if Ronaldos shot hit Lingard it would of been offside(whether the officials or VAR noticed that we will never know).
As for offside/interfearing with the GK, I think your heading down a rocky road if that is deemed as interfearing with play. Although as it happens if Ronaldos shot hit Lingard it would of been offside(whether the officials or VAR noticed that we will never know).
Someone mentioned the apparent inconsistencies within the PL lately. Dale Johnson from ESPN does his weekly tweet threads on VAR and he made a good point. The consistency is that the VAR has not gotten involved on any of these decisions in the last couple of weeks. The ones called offside by the AR/ref have stood. The goals given by the AR/ref have stood. This is a very difficult decision for the on field refs to make and it is one that is often debateable. So I think it's a good thing we haven't seen the intervention from the VAR in any of these moments lately.
Anubis
RefChat Addict
supppse the bigger picture is, disvussing an elite game decision is great, can be constructive and so on but lets remember, in our weekend game we either be working alone, be working with low level ars or actually be the ar
We dont get the replays to justify why the goals onside, we will get the gk chasing us round park telling us the striker was in his way.
We will have an ar flagging for that, and unless we are perfectly positioned operating alone, we have a lot to see, the player with ball, the ball, the strikers position, the strikers involvement, and same for gk.
have only seen the stills so just guessing, working alone, we will be doing well to give a goal here.
We dont get the replays to justify why the goals onside, we will get the gk chasing us round park telling us the striker was in his way.
We will have an ar flagging for that, and unless we are perfectly positioned operating alone, we have a lot to see, the player with ball, the ball, the strikers position, the strikers involvement, and same for gk.
have only seen the stills so just guessing, working alone, we will be doing well to give a goal here.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
It absolutely, positively, no way, no how, not now, not ever, in no universe can be interfering with PLAY. That means TOUCHING THE BALL (with one exception not relevant here).
The only question is whether it could be interfering with AN OPPONENT, which is a different concept in Law 11.
ok, off my pedanctic soapbox, but I do think on a ref board we should use the right terminology to discuss plays like this.
The biggest 'inconsistency' in football is between different incidents, which players (and pundits) often seem to think are identical, when in fact they are nothing of the sort. They then get rolled up into a 'referee(s) not being consistent' narrative.
Comfortably in the top 3 of annoying player pleas, 'it was the same as the last one ref'. Err no it wasn't even close.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
For me, this clearly impacts the goalkeeper's ability to play to the ball. Wider context, the offside law is designed to prevent goal hanging. It is shame that Lindgard might have have ended up there because of a nearly-foul but that can't affect the following decision. This is not actually covered in the LotG. "he didn't make an obvious action, the defender did..."
I am 1000% offside here. But I understand that it is not line of sight, the idea that if there's a line of sight call then the players need to appeal to get the call is confusing, and I understand that the following line is the relevant one here:
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
If you really want to nit pick, you can see Lindgard shielding his head from potential contact with the GK. That is a cast iron clue for me that he is impacting the GK's ability to play the ball.
As the law is written I don't think this can possibly be offside. There are four possible factors for interfering with an opponent ...
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
he definitely hasn't obstructed the keeper's vision
challenging an opponent for the ball
He hasn't challenged for the ball, rather I would say the opposite and he is trying to avoid getting in the way of the ball.
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
As above, he hasn't attempted to play the ball.
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He hasn't really made any action, he is laying on the floor.
I didn't see the game, but did the keeper react and appeal for offside? If not and you give offside here you are surprising everyone, if the keeper is picking the ball out of the net without comment he's as happy as he's going to be immediately after conceding a goal, so I would say just get on with it.
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
he definitely hasn't obstructed the keeper's vision
challenging an opponent for the ball
He hasn't challenged for the ball, rather I would say the opposite and he is trying to avoid getting in the way of the ball.
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
As above, he hasn't attempted to play the ball.
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He hasn't really made any action, he is laying on the floor.
I didn't see the game, but did the keeper react and appeal for offside? If not and you give offside here you are surprising everyone, if the keeper is picking the ball out of the net without comment he's as happy as he's going to be immediately after conceding a goal, so I would say just get on with it.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
I disagree fundamentally on this as per my previous post.
I think it is the worst possible scenario to have a a whole strata of decision-making that is reliant on the appeals of players.
And.
In my opinion, being "in touch" with the GK is obviously impacting the GK's ability to play the ball. If the shot is low, it's bleedingly obvious. That the shot is elsewhere it is still blindingly obviously impacting the GK IMHO.