Wall or a fence?

[Paul_10]

Dale Johnson has confirmed that he had previously been given incorrect information on this, and that an attacking player within 1m of the wall is reviewable by VAR.

View attachment 8300

Cant tell me in 2,286 games this has not happened before where there was impact.

Im also agreeing why is this getting sent to the monitor, whats subjective about whether a player is a metre away from the wall, he is either is or isn't. Maybe it was to sell the decision(with the refs doing the audio this season) to the crowd/TV viewers. Part of me may still suspect the VAR thinks it's a foul because the commentators get the VAR audio from the VAR and even after England announced the decision they still were implying it was disallowed for a foul.

If Howard Webb is doing is mic'd up show this season(hopefully) then no doubt this will be included.

 

[Runner Ref]

A couple of examples of this law being ignored in last couple of seasons

 

[Russell Jones]

Certainly looks like the offence was missed (rather than ignored!) for the Chelsea goal.

In the first one, the question is whether the sixth Arsenal defender (that the two Utd players are close to) actually forms part of the wall or is separate to it … IMO, the latter, just!

 

[Runner Ref]

Certainly looks like the offence was missed (rather than ignored!) for the Chelsea goal.

In the first one, the question is whether the sixth Arsenal defender (that the two Utd players are close to) actually forms part of the wall or is separate to it … IMO, the latter, just!

Not really an acceptable excuse to say that a referee, 2ARs, 4O and then VAR & AVAR who have replays ‘missed it’ though is it? They’ve missed something that is in black and white in law.

You’re saying there’s more than 1m between Zirkzee (11) & Calafiro (33)?

 

[Russell Jones]

I in no way excused it. But mistakes can and will regrettably happen whether you have one official on the game or a dozen!

Based on that (helpful) still, my best estimate would be that there is a little under 1m at the exact kick point. But judging this live would be very hard and I certainly wouldn’t see that image as categoric evidence of a clear error to drive a VAR intervention.

 

[RefereeX]

Not really an acceptable excuse to say that a referee, 2ARs, 4O and then VAR & AVAR who have replays ‘missed it’ though is it? They’ve missed something that is in black and white in law.

You’re saying there’s more than 1m between Zirkzee (11) & Calafiro (33)?

View attachment 8301

Yes, I think he is about 1 yard away (1 yard obviously being less than 1m too but still written in law) and given there’s no accurate way of measuring it, it’s not clearly and obviously wrong. I actually remember discussing this at the time. It’s a depth perception issue. Zhirkee is in front of the wall as well as wide of it.

 

[Runner Ref]

I in no way excused it. But mistakes can and will regrettably happen whether you have one official on the game or a dozen!

Based on that (helpful) still, my best estimate would be that there is a little under 1m at the exact kick point. But judging this live would be very hard and I certainly wouldn’t see that image as categoric evidence of a clear error to drive a VAR intervention.

But VAR was brought in to eradicate those mistakes. Yes there will always be discussions about whether something was SFP and so on, but for factual moments like we’re discussing, it’s inexcusable.

But the VAR doesn’t need to judge it live, they have replays……..

 

[Runner Ref]

Yes, I think he is about 1 yard away, and given there’s no accurate way of measuring it, it’s not clearly and obviously wrong. I actually remember discussing this at the time. It’s a depth perception issue. Zhirkee is in front of the wall as well as wide of it.

But you can’t ‘think’. Like offside, whether they’re 1m away is black and white. It’s not down to what someone thinks. They’re either more than 1m away or they aren’t.

 

[Russell Jones]

But VAR was brought in to eradicate those mistakes. Yes there will always be discussions about whether something was SFP and so on, but for factual moments like we’re discussing, it’s inexcusable.

But the VAR doesn’t need to judge it live, they have replays……..

I just said I didn't excuse it .

The cameras are set up to accurately gauge offside. They are not set up to accurately measure 1m at random points on the pitch so it becomes subjective. And for the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a fan of VAR and believe it creates more problems than it solves …

 

[Runner Ref]

I just said I didn't excuse it .

The cameras are set up to accurately gauge offside. They are not set up to accurately measure 1m at random points on the pitch so it becomes subjective. And for the avoidance of doubt, I have never been a fan of VAR and believe it creates more problems than it solves …

I know I know, was merely making the point.

Up until semi-automated offsides, the cameras weren’t setup to accurately gauge offside. Which is why they had so many issues with it.

 

[RefereeX]

But you can’t ‘think’. Like offside, whether they’re 1m away is black and white. It’s not down to what someone thinks. They’re either more than 1m away or they aren’t.

But we have a system that measures offsides and we don’t have a system that measures this. So unless they bring that system in we would have to revert to clear and obvious


Edit: posted this before reading the last 2 replies

 

[RustyRef]

If there is technology that can accurately measure how far an attacker is from a defensive wall then I'd be all for using it, it then becomes the same black and white criteria that we have for offside.

They are two very different scenarios though. No one could possibly argue that Guehi wasn't within 1m of the wall, it is obvious from the naked eye no matter what angle you look at. Whereas for the Zirkzee one he is probably less than 1m away, but I'm not sure it would be possible to say with 100% certainly (which they could for the Guehi one). Which probably then creates the argument if they don't have the technology to judge it accurately for all 1m offences should they use it for any, even when it is obvious.

 

[Runner Ref]

If there is technology that can accurately measure how far an attacker is from a defensive wall then I'd be all for using it, it then becomes the same black and white criteria that we have for offside.

They are two very different scenarios though. No one could possibly argue that Guehi wasn't within 1m of the wall, it is obvious from the naked eye no matter what angle you look at. Whereas for the Zirkzee one he is probably less than 1m away, but I'm not sure it would be possible to say with 100% certainly (which they could for the Guehi one). Which probably then creates the argument if they don't have the technology to judge it accurately for all 1m offences should they use it for any, even when it is obvious.

of course you can argue against the Guehi one. Just say it’s all about perception. You, nor the officials have proof of this after the fact. After all, they don’t have the tools as has been said.

The easy solution here is for the on field referees to actually take responsibility and manage the scenario. In all of the scenarios mentioned, you can tell quite clearly that the attackers are within 1m, or minutely over 1m away. Common sense would dictate they manage this by either warning the attackers or putting the foam down to show them their marker.

But they don’t seem able to use such common sense. All the examples show poor awareness from the onfield officials

 

[RustyRef]

of course you can argue against the Guehi one. Just say it’s all about perception. You, nor the officials have proof of this after the fact. After all, they don’t have the tools as has been said.

The easy solution here is for the on field referees to actually take responsibility and manage the scenario. In all of the scenarios mentioned, you can tell quite clearly that the attackers are within 1m, or minutely over 1m away. Common sense would dictate they manage this by either warning the attackers or putting the foam down to show them their marker.

But they don’t seem able to use such common sense. All the examples show poor awareness from the onfield officials

Given he was pretty much touching the defender on the end of the wall I'd say there is an argument they do have the evidence, even if just visual. But I get that penalising one offence on visual evidence when you can't do for a less obvious one is problematic on a number of levels.

Completely agree on the on-field officials, they should have seen the Guehi one as it was so obvious. Not sure they could give warnings as Guehi dragged the defender towards the wall after the whistle had been blown, but agree they could have put spray down. Perhaps that is the answer, if any attackers are close to the defensive wall then always draw a line that they can't go beyond, they do it sometimes but not always. That way, even if it was missed on-pitch, VAR can automatically get involved if an attacker crossed one of those spray lines.

 

[Runner Ref]

Given he was pretty much touching the defender on the end of the wall I'd say there is an argument they do have the evidence, even if just visual. But I get that penalising one offence on visual evidence when you can't do for a less obvious one is problematic on a number of levels.

Completely agree on the on-field officials, they should have seen the Guehi one as it was so obvious. Not sure they could give warnings as Guehi dragged the defender towards the wall after the whistle had been blown, but agree they could have put spray down. Perhaps that is the answer, if any attackers are close to the defensive wall then always draw a line that they can't go beyond, they do it sometimes but not always. That way, even if it was missed on-pitch, VAR can automatically get involved if an attacker crossed one of those spray lines.

Which is my point. What is the cut off point where someone can visually tell? Answer to that is, no one knows, and no one can realistically eyeball exactly 1m on a screen. So VAR needs to stay out until the time comes in which sufficient tech is there.

Or the referees go back to basics and actually manage situations and be proactive with spray. Really is not rocket science.

 

[RustyRef]

Which is my point. What is the cut off point where someone can visually tell? Answer to that is, no one knows, and no one can realistically eyeball exactly 1m on a screen. So VAR needs to stay out until the time comes in which sufficient tech is there.

Or the referees go back to basics and actually manage situations and be proactive with spray. Really is not rocket science.

My point as well, you can eyeball it when they are as close as Guehi was, but then is it fair to not penalise other offences when it isn't as obvious. Probably not.

We are pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[socal lurker]

My point as well, you can eyeball it when they are as close as Guehi was, but then is it fair to not penalise other offences when it isn't as obvious. Probably not.

We are pretty much saying the same thing.

Hmm. Doesn’t bother me at all. The point of the Law change is to get away from pushing players in the wall. So only punishing when it is blatant seems pretty ok with me. The goal here isn’t to take away goals because someone is only 32” away from the wall.

 

[one]

Penalising the non obvious distance encroachments for restarts (except penalties), especially when there is no apparent impact, is opening a can of worms, regardless of using tech or visually.
How about if the defending wall is less than 10 yards, say 9.5 and the ball is blocked on its way to the top corner? What if the referee set them there?
How about a team losing possession from a throw in where an opponent was 1.9 yards away and the opponents score three passes later?