A&H

West Ham v Leeds

R

Ryanj91

Well-Known Member
Not entirely sure how they've allowed that stand?

Bowen is offside and clatters into the keeper - defo prevents him playing the ball (collecting it cleanly).

Another example of it would be be nice to hear the VAR make the decision.
 
The Referee Store
Only possible explanation is "not touched the ball, so not offside".
But not for me, Bowen is right in the mix hunting the ball, so offside.
 
He both gets in the keepers line of vision and actively challenges for the ball

I don't understand this decision
 
Yeah - 100% agree there was no touch, but he couldn't be any closer to the action 😂
He also leave a leg in on the keeper whilst essentially challenging for the ball.
 
I am baffled, it is clearly offside. Bowen doesn't touch it, but he tries to and right in front of Meslier, and his presence there has almost certainly stopped the keeper getting it. Take your pick from interfering with play or interfering with an opponent, but it just has to be offside.
 
I am guessing it’s because the player on the floor manages to get a touch and Bowen jumps over the ball. Not a clear and obvious error I guess they deem it as?

Im just guessing, as the OP said it would be great to hear what VAR was actually saying on it. Regardless I disagree with the call
 
Joshref said:
I am guessing it’s because the player on the floor manages to get a touch and Bowen jumps over the ball. Not a clear and obvious error I guess they deem it as?

Im just guessing, as the OP said it would be great to hear what VAR was actually saying on it. Regardless I disagree with the call
Click to expand...


offside does not conform to the clear obvious criteria.....

it gets checked for on or offside and regardless.


fouls etc come under clear obvious etc, offside does not
 
Anubis said:
offside does not conform to the clear obvious criteria.....

it gets checked for on or offside and regardless.


fouls etc come under clear obvious etc, offside does not
Click to expand...
But surely whether or not a player is interfering with play could come under C and O? I can understand sorta why offside itself can’t be C and O, it’s a factual thing. But whether they interfere is a subjective call. I’m just trying to understand how VAR could come to that conclusion
 
Joshref said:
But surely whether or not a player is interfering with play could come under C and O? I can understand sorta why offside itself can’t be C and O, it’s a factual thing. But whether they interfere is a subjective call. I’m just trying to understand how VAR could come to that conclusion
Click to expand...


not seen it but from the still, and the other posts, it does look , interesting
 
Joshref said:
But surely whether or not a player is interfering with play could come under C and O? I can understand sorta why offside itself can’t be C and O, it’s a factual thing. But whether they interfere is a subjective call. I’m just trying to understand how VAR could come to that conclusion
Click to expand...
Don't think so, offside is more factual. OK, there is some subjectivity in it but all they had to decide is did Bowen attempt to play the ball and in doing so impacted on an opponent. If you are stood in front of the keeper with your feet being where his hands want to be you can only be impacting him.
 
Anubis said:
not seen it but from the still, and the other posts, it does look , interesting
Click to expand...
"Interesting" for the majority of refs next match at the dog and duck.
Not interesting for PL officials.
If PL want to "deviate", then they should have to explain why.
 
It's yet another one that PGMOL should, but probably won't, come out and explain why it wasn't given as offside.
 
N416405 said:
"Interesting" for the majority of refs next match at the dog and duck.
Not interesting for PL officials.
If PL want to "deviate", then they should have to explain why.
Click to expand...

us plebs tho should never seek to assume mantle of elite.

if nothing else its a stark reminder that what we see on tv is not what we see on council pitch 14


regardless of level....this stinks of offside.
 
The still image isn't conclusive that Bowen doesn't touch the ball there. The build up does it come off Leeds defender to go through to that position?
 
MattTheRef said:
The still image isn't conclusive that Bowen doesn't touch the ball there. The build up does it come off Leeds defender to go through to that position?
Click to expand...


the image shows interfering with an opponent....gk
 
Last edited:
MattTheRef said:
The still image isn't conclusive that Bowen doesn't touch the ball there. The build up does it come off Leeds defender to go through to that position?
Click to expand...
The offside law does not say anything about "touching the ball". It does say that interfering with an opponent or seeking to gain an advantage while in an offside position is offside.

If the player is in an offside position when the play occurs, that still shot makes it abundantly clear that he's interfering with the keeper. Admittedly, this is a match I haven't watched with so many other games going on today, but I'd really like to hear the thought process determining that this was not an offside offense.
 
RefIADad said:
The offside law does not say anything about "touching the ball". It does say that interfering with an opponent or seeking to gain an advantage while in an offside position is offside.

If the player is in an offside position when the play occurs, that still shot makes it abundantly clear that he's interfering with the keeper. Admittedly, this is a match I haven't watched with so many other games going on today, but I'd really like to hear the thought process determining that this was not an offside offense.
Click to expand...
"abundantly clear". How does a still shot from the opposite side of Bowen not show he might have touched the ball before the other attacker?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top