A&H

Utd v villereal

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.
It's very common at our levels that the referee will ask us ot judge player reaction for these types of calls.

If the keeper is picking the ball out the net, no complaints, then the chances are he doesnt feel like he has been impacted. Its just playing the averages.

In the clip, he is not in the line of sight, he is lay on the goround, completely not impeding the keepers view and he doesn't impact keepers ability to play the ball, because the keeper actually plays it, unimpacted by Lingard.
 
The Referee Store
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.

So which of the four requirements that I posted above does this tick? I can't see any.
 
It's very common at our levels that the referee will ask us ot judge player reaction for these types of calls.

If the keeper is picking the ball out the net, no complaints, then the chances are he doesnt feel like he has been impacted. Its just playing the averages.
That involves making the presumption that the player knows the laws of the game.
I do not think it is realistic or credible.
An appeal for a foul is one thing. But please compare to an appeal for offside after a deflection. The referee does not base their decision on the appeals of players. That would be idiotic as a) the players typically do not know the LotG and b) they cannot be trusted anyway.

Yet here, like "line of sight", you want to base decision making about "being impacted" on the appeals of players. I think that is ridiculous.

(Of course I understand we use player reactions as clues;))
 
Answered already: "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"
I think I would have to agree with what others have already pointed out, that Lingard doesn't do anything that impacts on the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball.
 
That involves making the presumption that the player knows the laws of the game.
I do not think it is realistic or credible.
An appeal for a foul is one thing. But please compare to an appeal for offside after a deflection. The referee does not base their decision on the appeals of players. That would be idiotic as a) the players typically do not know the LotG and b) they cannot be trusted anyway.

Yet here, like "line of sight", you want to base decision making about "being impacted" on the appeals of players. I think that is ridiculous.

(Of course I understand we use player reactions as clues;))
I'd disagree with this one. Maybe at youth levels but then you aren't going to have NARs except for high level.
At Saturday with NARs I'll bet 99.9% of keepers are aware of the offside law regarding their vision being affected by a PIOP in their line of sight.
 
I am interested though...
How about a similar scenario: Ronaldo is shooting from close to the penalty spot, the GK is 5 yards off his line in anticipation of the shot, and Lindgard slide-dives along the goal area line in front of the GK as Ronaldo scores. There are no other players involved. Lindgard does not touch the GK. Your decision?
 
I am interested though...
How about a similar scenario: Ronaldo is shooting from close to the penalty spot, the GK is 5 yards off his line in anticipation of the shot, and Lindgard slide-dives along the goal area line in front of the GK as Ronaldo scores. There are no other players involved. Lindgard does not touch the GK. Your decision?

not reading thro all the posts but I think am on same page as you, working alone, bearing in mind the position we might be in, it could easy ( wrongly) be offside that we give, and, it would be difficult to be critical

at the level shown in the clip, for many reasons, some onfield, some offield, onside is indeed the correct call.

a lot of the things we read on here are great but a lot of them also are not relevant to our game this afternoon, and ultimately as a resource, its all very well us saying the ref or lino in the champ league got it right or wrong, but, its our own game we should be looking to improve.
 
I am interested though...
How about a similar scenario: Ronaldo is shooting from close to the penalty spot, the GK is 5 yards off his line in anticipation of the shot, and Lindgard slide-dives along the goal area line in front of the GK as Ronaldo scores. There are no other players involved. Lindgard does not touch the GK. Your decision?
What your describing here is an obvious action.

Lingard slide dives (action) along goal area in front of keeper.
 
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.
@santa sangria , the crux of your argument is in the last two paragraphs above. I think the point you're failing to convince on is the action that Lingard took that impacted the ability of the GK to play the ball. Had he started standing up, waved his arms around etc. then it would be more convincing. However simply lying in a prone position and shielding your head seems pretty tenuous to me. So then you further look to the other clues in the situation ... did the GK attempt to save the shot (unimpeded by Lindgard) and did the GK appeal to show he was affected. In this case, both these clues further point you to a non offside call. Given your '1000%' comment, I'm guessing you won't be persuaded ... but thought I'd try at least :)
 
@santa sangria , the crux of your argument is in the last two paragraphs above. I think the point you're failing to convince on is the action that Lingard took that impacted the ability of the GK to play the ball. Had he started standing up, waved his arms around etc. then it would be more convincing. However simply lying in a prone position and shielding your head seems pretty tenuous to me. So then you further look to the other clues in the situation ... did the GK attempt to save the shot (unimpeded by Lindgard) and did the GK appeal to show he was affected. In this case, both these clues further point you to a non offside call. Given your '1000%' comment, I'm guessing you won't be persuaded ... but thought I'd try at least :)
You are bringing me round!
 
@santa sangria , the crux of your argument is in the last two paragraphs above. I think the point you're failing to convince on is the action that Lingard took that impacted the ability of the GK to play the ball. Had he started standing up, waved his arms around etc. then it would be more convincing. However simply lying in a prone position and shielding your head seems pretty tenuous to me. So then you further look to the other clues in the situation ... did the GK attempt to save the shot (unimpeded by Lindgard) and did the GK appeal to show he was affected. In this case, both these clues further point you to a non offside call. Given your '1000%' comment, I'm guessing you won't be persuaded ... but thought I'd try at least :)
As ever better articulated than I 😊
 
Back
Top