WBA V Man City

[JamesL]

Agree, which is why I think Sian Massey was correct to raise the flag when she did, well correct in the timing but not on the decision obviously. There's no way the player is about to score a goal and certainly doesn't have a clear run into the penalty area. Had Kavanagh blown straight away there would have been no VAR check, no one would have even know that her decision was marginally wrong and there would have been no controversy.

This is a rare time that I disagree with you:

This is the moment the player is receiving the ball. This shows a clear path into the penalty area. This is a clear delay situation.
I think some more clarity around when an attack no longer exists, as momentum does slow I admit, but not enough to consider this attacking phase over.

 

[RustyRef]

This is a rare time that I disagree with you:
View attachment 4774
This is the moment the player is receiving the ball. This shows a clear path into the penalty area. This is a clear delay situation.
I think some more clarity around when an attack no longer exists, as momentum does slow I admit, but not enough to consider this attacking phase over.

That isn't what I meant. She was absolutely right to delay the flag there as I would say at that point the player does have a clear run into the penalty area. What I meant was that when she eventually raised it that clear run was no longer there.

The key thing though was they should have been communicating better. If Sian was going to raise the flag she should have said so on comms, and if Chris didn't want it he could have asked her to wait. The way they did it just looked messy and didn't exactly scream great teamwork.

 

[JamesL]

That isn't what I meant. She was absolutely right to delay the flag there as I would say at that point the player does have a clear run into the penalty area. What I meant was that when she eventually raised it that clear run was no longer there.

The key thing though was they should have been communicating better. If Sian was going to raise the flag she should have said so on comms, and if Chris didn't want it he could have asked her to wait. The way they did it just looked messy and didn't exactly scream great teamwork.

Fair enough.
An exactly what I have been saying. We agree after all

 

[bloovee]

Agree, which is why I think Sian Massey was correct to raise the flag when she did, well correct in the timing but not on the decision obviously. There's no way the player is about to score a goal and certainly doesn't have a clear run into the penalty area. Had Kavanagh blown straight away there would have been no VAR check, no one would have even know that her decision was marginally wrong and there would have been no controversy.

We would have known the decision was wrong if TV chose to show it.

 

[bloovee]

This is a rare time that I disagree with you:
View attachment 4774
This is the moment the player is receiving the ball. This shows a clear path into the penalty area. This is a clear delay situation.
I think some more clarity around when an attack no longer exists, as momentum does slow I admit, but not enough to consider this attacking phase over.

I'll be fair, City last night could have kept the ball for two or three minutes before scoring. Isn't there an argument for saying if the attack has supposedly ended, what's the point in giving offside anyway?

 

[socal lurker]

I'll be fair, City last night could have kept the ball for two or three minutes before scoring. Isn't there an argument for saying if the attack has supposedly ended, what's the point in giving offside anyway?

No. Why should the offending side get to keep the ball just because the OS was close?

Under current guidelines, the OS is clearly supposed to be called, only delayed.

 

[JamesL]

I'll be fair, City last night could have kept the ball for two or three minutes before scoring. Isn't there an argument for saying if the attack has supposedly ended, what's the point in giving offside anyway?

Not really, I think there has to be a point where the decision of the AR is taken. Whether that is confirmed by VAR or whether a natural or optimum point in the play.
Not all teams can keep ball for 2-3 mins and score at will. The laws should retain an element of neutrality and not favour more skilled teams or styles of play.

 

[bloovee]

No. Why should the offending side get to keep the ball just because the OS was close?

Under current guidelines, the OS is clearly supposed to be called, only delayed.

What offending side? There was no offence.

For the rest of us without VAR, I assume we still flag only if we are sure the attacker is offside. With VAR, what's the point in flagging? If the promising attack has petered out, then the advantage of getting away with an offside has also petered out as the defence has reorganised.

Current guidelines are not designed to be fair, nor (evidently) to eliminate controversy. Find some different criteria for how long after the offside, or after what event, a goal can be disallowed.

 

[bloovee]

Not really, I think there has to be a point where the decision of the AR is taken. Whether that is confirmed by VAR or whether a natural or optimum point in the play.
Not all teams can keep ball for 2-3 mins and score at will. The laws should retain an element of neutrality and not favour more skilled teams or styles of play.

It wouldn't have retained neutrality if the CR had accepted the flag. It would have wrongly penalised one side.

 

[socal lurker]

What offending side? There was no offence.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. My response was clearly to the idea of what is the point of stopping if the attack fizzled with the attacking team still in possession if there had been an offense.

For the rest of us without VAR, I assume we still flag only if we are sure the attacker is offside.

With or without VAR an AR is only supposed to flag if the AR is sure there was an offense. She was sure; she just happened to be wrong

With VAR, what's the point in flagging? If the promising attack has petered out, then the advantage of getting away with an offside has also petered out as the defence has reorganised.

This is utter nonsense. The punishment for OS is a FK for the other team. Why in the world would that punishment not be enforced because it was a close call and the stoppage is delayed in case the AR is wrong.

Current guidelines are not designed to be fair, nor (evidently) to eliminate controversy. Find some different criteria for how long after the offside, or after what event, a goal can be disallowed.

Current guidelines were designed to be fair and reduce controversy. They aren't perfect at that, but it is absolutely the design. The design is that if there is an immediate goal scoring opportunity, play continues so that an erroneous OS call doesn't prevent the goal. The delay means that an immediate goal scoring opportunity isn't lost, as VAR can fix it, but limits the amount of impact from VAR delays in other contexts. So many missed calls (in either direction) can be fixed. Setting aside the milimeter OS line drawing on calls, VR has in fact rescued those kind of mistakes, so the bad misses are fixed. (But whether the micro-calls that have been added more than offset that value is a matter of opinion.) From what I have seen, the PL has done a poor job of implementing VAR, including with respect to delay on OS. MLS in the US has been better at getting consistency and less controversy (I think MLS not using line drawing technology to catch micro-errors has made it less controversial--though I believe there are also fewer cameras to get a perfect angle than at a big PL game).

 

[one]

Borderline case - action around the edge of the box - "clear run" is a horrible phrase to have in the book.

This is a rare time that I disagree with you:
View attachment 4774
This is the moment the player is receiving the ball. This shows a clear path into the penalty area. This is a clear delay situation.
I think some more clarity around when an attack no longer exists, as momentum does slow I admit, but not enough to consider this attacking phase over.

I think you are taking "clear path into the penalty area" out of context (another poor choice of word by IFAB). The image you posted is when the AR should have flagged. Yes there is a clear path but the ball is moving away from the PA, the player is running away from the PA (despite having a clear path into PA). It is inevitable that defenders are going to catch up with him and close him off. Having the path is not enough, moving to that path is just as important. The movement direction is implied in the criteria. Despite that, the AR delays a further 20 yard before raising the flag. For me, there is no case for delaying here.

which is why I think Sian Massey was correct to raise the flag when she did,

I think she should have raised flag earlier without much delay at all as pointed out above. (yes it would have been an incorrect decision for offside but correct application of delaying flag).

 

[santa sangria]

It's "clear run"...
"Delaying the flag/whistle for an offence is only permissible in a very clear attacking situation when a player is about to score a goal or has a clear run into/towards the opponents’ penalty area"

Video Assistant Referee (VAR) protocol | IFAB

www.theifab.com

I think what's happened is that PGMOL (and others) have previously interpreted this very generously because a strict interpretation just doesn't support the mechanics of VAR and the TV experience very well.

It's surely human to have a sliding scale in your head as an AR: I am 1000% sure so pointless to delay under any circumstances - to - that was so close and I'm using flash lag so even though the player only has control on the edge of the box I will delay.

Wouldn't it be better if the guidance reflected the reality of the AR's decision-making better?

 

[one]

Wouldn't it be better if the guidance reflected the reality of the AR's decision-making better?

I would say no. It would lead to problems like this. The ARs need to learn to do it the correct way.

 

[Mr Dean]

that was so close and I'm using flash lag so even though the player only has control on the edge of the box I will delay

In this case, I feel the the assistant should assume the player is onside unless they are 100% sure the player is offside, even in matches without VAR.

 

[bloovee]

The wording is imprecise but Sian has a good case for saying she was following the guidelines. But it was a wrong offside call.

Back to fairness: if the attacker had been offside, but the AR didn't think so and didn't flag, would that goal have been disallowed by the VAR?

(I know the answer.)

 

[santa sangria]

In this case, I feel the the assistant should assume the player is onside unless they are 100% sure the player is offside, even in matches without VAR.

I think you know I meant “I think it’s offside etc etc”
Lol

 

[Big Cat]

I've said it before, but the AR is now just a glorified 'touch judge'. The offside flag no longer has much consequence and VAR mops up any missed incidents on the FOP. Doesn't leave much responsibility to Elite ARs, who secretly and collectively, must be gutted

 

[socal lurker]

I've said it before, but the AR is now just a glorified 'touch judge'. The offside flag no longer has much consequence and VAR mops up any missed incidents on the FOP. Doesn't leave much responsibility to Elite ARs, who secretly and collectively, must be gutted

You overstate it. Yes, many key calls are reviewed by VAR, but quality ARs are still crucial to a well managed games. Most OS calls don't meet the criteria for review by the VAR, and ARs continue to assist the referees in identifying fouls and misconduct. I'll agree that the critical role in game determining OS calls is mostly removed, but I think you overly diminish the role that they continue to play.

 

[Big Cat]

You overstate it

That would be most out of character
The only thing the core skill of offside recognition counts for now, is the AR's post-match appraisal. Whether the delayed and relatively insignificant flag (or absence of it) would've been a KMI 4 years ago. I'd be depressed about that