West Ham v Leeds

[cwyeary]

Having viewed the highlights (i), I have formed the opinion that an offside offence was not committed for the following reasons:

1. The still image above shows Vlasic (WH no. 11) touching the ball. At this moment in time, Bowen (WH no. 20) is behind the ball and therefore in an onside position.
2. Bowen may have previously been in an offside position but he does not interfere with play and/or an opponent until after Vlasic touches the ball as shown in the still image above. An offside offence can only be committed if a player is in an offside position when a teammate last touches the ball.
3. My view is that Bowen interferes with play and/or an opponent after the touch of the ball from Vlasic. Bowen is in an onside position at this moment (see para 1); therefore, he is permitted to interfere with play and/or an opponent.
4. Accordingly, no offside offence is committed.



(i)

Fair point perhaps. This is the still shot on the last touch. Now is his entire body onside here? It's his right leg going for ball here so his upper body and left shoulder is at least a decent amount closer to the goal line. I'd like to see how the VAR software would draw the lines here.

 

[JamesL]

The player on the floor played the ball before bowen did any action that could be an offside offence, didn't he? . The still just shows that he was behind the ball so not in offside position.

 

[JamesL]

Fair point perhaps. This is the still shot on the last touch. Now is his entire body onside here? It's his right leg going for ball here so his upper body and left shoulder is at least a decent amount closer to the goal line. I'd like to see how the VAR software would draw the lines here.

My guess is that VAR would draw the line using the part of the ball closest to the goal line as the marker and then compare that with most likely Bowens left armpit based on this still.

 

[Peter Grove]

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

Not true. It's only the factual determinations of whether a player is in an offside position and whether a PIOP has touched the ball, that are not subject to the clear (and obvious) error criteria.

Deciding whether the player has interfered with an opponent on the other hand, is a subjective decision and is subject to the, "Was it a clear error?" test.

For instance, here is an example of one piece of wording from the "Final VAR Protocol" published by the IFAB in 2017:

if, for example, the AR informs the referee that a player is in an offside position when a goal is scored but the AR does not know if that player is interfering with the line of vision of the goalkeeper, the VAR can start to ‘check’ the situation in readiness for a potential review request or to inform the referee if a clear
error appears to have occurred.

(Emphasis mine).

 

[Big Cat]

I hired a Private Investigator who accessed Stockley Park on Saturday
Apparently, they haven't been able to get hold of a book in print and the SG1's are technophobes, so they've been using this 50p coin as guidance for Law 12
The Bowen scenario and obvious Shelvey 'play', were beyond the remit given to the Royal Mint, hence the confusion over the weekend

Incidentally, my son got handed one of these coins yesterday. They're worth between £10->20 on Ebay
Result!

 

[JamesL]

I hired a Private Investigator who accessed Stockley Park on Saturday
Apparently, they haven't been able to get hold of a book in print and the SG1's are technophobes, so they've been using this 50p coin as guidance for Law 12
The Bowen scenario and obvious Shelvey 'play', were beyond the remit given to the Royal Mint, hence the confusion over the weekend

Incidentally, my son got handed one of these coins yesterday. They're worth between £10->20 on Ebay
Result!


View attachment 5386

Ebay is lying. It's worth 50p.