A&H

VAR - disallowed goal controversy- offside (interfering with an opponent)

C

CapnBloodbeard

RefChat Addict
What do we think about this one?
https://streamable.com/9dk5n

Wrong call for me. IMO, the defender had no chance of getting to the ball carrier, so for 'interfering with an opponent' there's just no impact. However, the ref appeared to signal a DFK offence - that's even worse. For me, it was just 2 players colliding - but again, a minor careless foul away from the ball with no impact on play? Shouldn't be disallowing a goal for those.

Also, for the coach RC, apparently he told the ref or AR several times that he's a f****** joke. Easy red.

EDIT: Ref was interviewed after the match, it was offside.
EDIT 2: Anybody watching this has absolutely blown up. And a big part of it is poor mechanics from the referee - signalling what appears to be a direct free kick has caused a LOT of angst online. Had he clearly indicated offside, it would have gone down better at least with the fans (and maybe even the coach who got sent).
 
Last edited:
The Referee Store
CapnBloodbeard said:
What do we think about this one?
https://streamable.com/9dk5n

Wrong call for me. IMO, the defender had no chance of getting to the ball carrier, so for 'interfering with an opponent' there's just no impact. However, the ref appeared to signal a DFK offence - that's even worse. For me, it was just 2 players colliding - but again, a minor careless foul away from the ball with no impact on play? Shouldn't be disallowing a goal for those.

Also, for the coach RC, apparently he told the ref or AR several times that he's a f****** joke. Easy red.

EDIT: Ref was interviewed after the match, it was offside.
EDIT 2: Anybody watching this has absolutely blown up. And a big part of it is poor mechanics from the referee - signalling what appears to be a direct free kick has caused a LOT of angst online. Had he clearly indicated offside, it would have gone down better at least with the fans (and maybe even the coach who got sent).
Click to expand...
Agreed, I don't believe the Offside Rule is meant to be this complicated
 
Two things going through my mind....

1) don’t think he was interfering - he was standing still trying to signal that he wasn’t in play so he would’t get flagged for offside. Maybe clever where he was standing but as above I can’t believe the law is meant to be this complicated

2) If the law is that complicated and that is the correct decision I have little to no chance of applying that properly when I’m on the line. in addition to all the things we have to look at when we are that deep I have to guess intentions on how and where other players are standing who might be interfering in an obscure way - I’m not that good.
 
Well...it doesn't matter if he was standing still if he was in the attacker's way. The LOTG used to have an example of a player lying down injured but in the keeper's way.

Personally, I just don't think the defender had any chance whatsoever of intercepting the attacker. So, any interference becomes moot.
 
Well yes. That's going to happen when your league has single players that get paid more than the combined salary of every single A-league player.
Not just the UK - we lose all our top players to overseas leagues, some in Asia, usually Europe though.

Speaking of ex-UK has-been 'C' list players....Muscat is still coaching
 
CapnBloodbeard said:
Well...it doesn't matter if he was standing still if he was in the attacker's way. The LOTG used to have an example of a player lying down injured but in the keeper's way.

Personally, I just don't think the defender had any chance whatsoever of intercepting the attacker. So, any interference becomes moot.
Click to expand...
Debatable. These two images indicate he did have a decent chance of playing/challenging for the ball.
1540641888919.png
1540641937332.png
 
Big Cat said:
Real time always trumps captions (except for incontrovertible questions of fact) ;)
Click to expand...
Agreed with that statement. It was the real time that lead me to believe he had a decent chance and I took the stills to re-enforce it.
 
I'm surprised Muscat is still breathing after his checkered career....


I'm sure he's a fan of anything refereeing!!!
 
I can see why he has given it. Had the attacker stood still I'd be less inclined to say offside, but there's a little movement towards the defender and what looks like a hand on the back. I'd say there was a good enough chance of the defender being able to get to the ball, or block the subsequent cross, to say that the attacker was interfering.
 
This is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of VAR, the crowd has celebrated a perfectly good goal and potential comeback only to have that emotion put on hold and then removed because of trifling by someone in a VAR box... Thats harsh in the extreme to scrub that off, I can even understands the coaches frustration too.... They can take this potentially good idea far too far..... Goal for me....
 
Sheffields Finest said:
This is one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of VAR, the crowd has celebrated a perfectly good goal and potential comeback only to have that emotion put on hold and then removed because of trifling by someone in a VAR box... Thats harsh in the extreme to scrub that off, I can even understands the coaches frustration too.... They can take this potentially good idea far too far..... Goal for me....
Click to expand...
Absolutely.... this has always been my concern
Score a goal......disappear for a cuppa......come back......."was it a goal?"......."No, technicality only an elite ref might buy"
Spontaneity dowsed, excitement drained
 
What’s the criteria for VAR determine offside with reference to interfering with an opponent?
Does it have to be an obvious error, as it’s a subjective decision not a factual one?
 
bester said:
What’s the criteria for VAR determine offside with reference to interfering with an opponent?
Does it have to be an obvious error, as it’s a subjective decision not a factual one?
Click to expand...
He recommends and OFR.
 
That's the other thought I have here - even for those who agree it's an offside offence, could you say it's a clear and obvious error though?
EDIT: The official word it - it wasn't:

https://www.a-league.com.au/news/wh...2mkbJgU37T7QMWp72CaUL-NqW0csKAnDfnImXtqyG5y-Y
aw 11 of FIFA Laws of the Game states “In situations where a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball.”

In this incident when the ball is played to Josh Risdon, Jaushua Sotirio is in an offside position. Sotirio is in the way of Michael Zullo and interferes with his movement towards the ball. It is an offside offence because it impacts on Zullo’s ability to challenge for the ball. The VAR recommends an On Field Review. The referee reviews the footage and he disallows the goal.

Although this technically is the correct decision, having listened to people in the game since Saturday night, we agree that the VAR should have a higher threshold for clear and obvious errors to get the balance right. The VAR should avoid intervening in subjective and technical decisions which are not clearly and obviously wrong and leave those decisions to the on-field match officials. The VARs have been instructed to apply this position in future.

FFA do a weekly recap of key decisions.

Incidentally, this decision - and a bad one from last week - has forced the FFA to undergo a bit of a policy shift to lift the bar higher on 'clear and obvious error' to try to reduce VAR involvement.

However, we've heard that before when the Aussie VAR has turned games into a farce with far worse decisions than anything we've seen this weekend - and half the problem has always been the extreme selectivity (to the point of appearing biased) - that is to say, often big questions raised over the incidents it doesn't get involved in. So, we'll see.

For the most part I thought there was a bit more restraint this weekend - it's worrying when a player has gone down in the box, you know the ref could have called a penalty for it (but didn't), and you have absolutely no idea what the VAR is going to decide. It's a lottery.
Except once the VAR tells the ref to look, it's a guaranteed decision change.
And I'm not sure that's how it's supposed to work.
 
Last edited:
The controversy continues.....a case of handling which blocked a goal went to VAR after ref ruled no penalty.
Problem 1: This scenario was pretty much identical to a number of VAR penalties awarded at the world cup (Where it was basically established that if a defender jumps with arms out at 90 degrees and handling occurs, it's a PK)
Problem 2: There were 2 things to look at - Ball was headed, hit the hand, hit the post then came back onto the player's chest, but at one angle it looks like that was the handling. There's a bit of confusion over whether the VAR even looked at the right bit - a video shows them tracking back and forth over the wrong bit primarily, but they may have picked up on it later (the weekly decision blog says they saw it just considered it accidental).

After the terrible decisions in the first 2 weeks, the A-League boss told the VAR to lift the bar of 'clear and obvious error'. Now they've gone too far the other way and aren't intervening.

The consistent incompetence of the management and coaching of Australian referees is mindblowing. We just can't get this right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top