A&H

West Ham v Leeds

The Referee Store
MattTheRef said:
"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?
Click to expand...

Again, there is nothing in the Laws that says "touching the ball" is the only thing that constitutes offside in this case. I've copied and pasted the relevant section of Law 11 directly from the FA's website. Please help me understand where you're seeing "not offside unless the ball is touched".

1641747588187.png
 
Anubis said:
only seen the still...as mentioned,

so only basing call on the still.

i look tmrw
Click to expand...
I am not seeing this clear image of offside everyone else is off this one still.

If Bowen doesn't touch the ball = yes he offside. This image does not prove either way if he does or doesn't, and if he does whether he gets the first touch or second.
 
RefIADad said:
Again, there is nothing in the Laws that says "touching the ball" is the only thing that constitutes offside in this case. I've copied and pasted the relevant section of Law 11 directly from the FA's website. Please help me understand where you're seeing "not offside unless the ball is touched".

View attachment 5385
Click to expand...
Where is he offside from?! How does this still show he is offside? The last touch before the still from what I can see is off a Leeds player.

Going round in circles, read what I am asking.
 
There was a ball played from out of shot from that still when Bowen was clearly offside, they didn't show lines but then they went onto forensically examine his actions in front of the keeper and wouldn't have done that if he wasn't in an offside position.
 
RustyRef said:
There was a ball played from out of shot from that still when Bowen was clearly offside, they didn't show lines but then they went onto forensically examine his actions in front of the keeper and wouldn't have done that if he wasn't in an offside position.
Click to expand...
The ball appears to come off a Leeds player is what I am trying to suggest.

So I am putting forward the point in support of our colleagues: that they felt he wasn't offside from the initial pass as it was off a defender - so him "obstructing the keeper" doesn't come into play unless the other WH attacker touches it before Bowen in front of the keeper thus making him active and offside.

Hence why I was confused at the apparent abundantly clear offside previous replies alluded to when I for one can't tell who is touching the ball first in any angle I have seen.
 
Anyway I don't particularly care. I'd just rather find the reason our colleagues give decisions (or don't) than go against them.

Just like I would as a senior AR explaining the referee's decision during a game.
 
MattTheRef said:
Where is he offside from?! How does this still show he is offside? The last touch before the still from what I can see is off a Leeds player.

Going round in circles, read what I am asking.
Click to expand...
I'm reading exactly what you are saying. You are saying that unless the player touches the ball, he isn't involved in active play. That's wrong. He is actively interfering with play while being in an offside position. And remember that it's only a DELIBERATE play by a defender that resets offside. A deflection is not a deliberate play. Now if the referee rules a deliberate play by a Leeds player, then offside would reset. But since we don't hear that, we can only speculate.

But what you are saying in your responses is that Bowen can only interfere with play by touching the ball is not the correct interpretation of the offside law. Interfering with play or an opponent can be ruled without touching the ball. This is one of those examples.
 
Had to go watch. Its interfering with an opponent

i see from watching it why its been given, alas, wrongly.

if your bootlaces are kissing the gk. you are impacting,
 
Anubis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you not a member of the elite?
Pretty sure you recently said on another thread that you had a top flight game in front of 16,000.
 
To paraphrase Bill Shankly: If Bowen is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then what's he doing inches from the ball and the keeper?
 
RustyRef said:
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.
Click to expand...
RefIADad said:
But what you are saying in your responses is that Bowen can only interfere with play by touching the ball is not the correct interpretation of the offside law. Interfering with play or an opponent can be ruled without touching the ball. This is one of those examples.
Click to expand...
if he doesn’t touch the ball, it cannot be interfering with play.*

It can only be interfering with an opponent.

________
* Subject to an exception that doesn’t apply here
 
  • Like
Reactions: one
Joshref said:
Yes, Bowen doesn’t touch the ball, but he does enough there for me

View attachment 5384
Click to expand...
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)
 
Clearly offside in any Matrix which has been programmed with VAR, otherwise I'm not pulling the real bones out of that in any real world
 
Watching the video closely, it does appear that the Leeds defender very possibly touched the ball last in his tackle, and since a tackle is clearly a deliberate attempt to get the ball it cannot be ruled as a deflection and therefore offside is ruled out. This must have been the call, since Bowen's actions clearly impacted on an opponent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top