West Ham v Nottingham Forest
- Thread starter DavidObs
- Start date
Donate to RefChat
Help keep RefChat running, any donation would be appreciated
Can't remember what happened with the offside, but the penalty was pretty clear for me. Keeper got nowhere near the ball and punched the attacker in the head. Had it been a follow up after he'd punched the ball he would have got away with it, but keepers have to be accountable.
Even though I am a West Ham fan (though not my most supported team), I tend to agree with you, whereby the challenge made no contact with the ball. If an outfield player makes a challenge making no contact with the ball inside or outside his penalty area, then very likely to always be deemed a foul resulting in a penalty kick or free kick depending where the incident occurred.
Last edited:
one
RefChat Addict
For the penalty, the problem for me was the inconstancy of VAR involvement. I have seen many occasions that clear and obvious careless fouls which are not impactful have been ignored by VAR. The most common case is a foul after a shot has been taken. This foul was after the ball was cleared by a defender ahead of the attacker.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
For me, correct decision on the offside. Though a great example of a call which is never likely to be easily accepted by the wider football community. The defender is simply trying to ‘get a foot in’ rather than attempting any kind of controlled play. The sooner we scrap the unhelpful and misleading “Deliberate Play” terminology, the better!
The wider football community which includes a certain Mr K Hackett who is adamant that it is a deliberate play, whereas I am on the other side of the offence since I don’t think his interpretation is what the Law intended. I agree with you about deliberate play, though if IFAB intend to keep the intention, then perhaps they would be better served using your terminology of controlled play rather than deliberate play. In any event, I think it needs scrutiny at IFAB’s yearly meeting which can’t be too far away eg February time I think.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
Mr. Hackett is not always current on interpretations . . .
We did have a bit of a whipsaw a few years back on trying to draw lines on what a deliberate play is, which certainly doesn’t help with public expectations.
We did have a bit of a whipsaw a few years back on trying to draw lines on what a deliberate play is, which certainly doesn’t help with public expectations.
Not offside for me, I see this as deliberate play, defenders intention is to tackle the striker, which he achieves sending the ball away from goal towards the touchline with a solid interception. Did the player obtain an advantage from the offside position, is this a consideration?
youtube.com
Clear penalty for me, GK can’t punch someone in the head, you have some leeway if you make contact with the ball or miss it by cms but this was not the case.
youtube.com
✂️ Deliberate play
44 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Forest move seven points from drop zone! | West Ham 1-2 Nott'm Forest | Premier League highlights" by Sky Spor...
youtube.com
Clear penalty for me, GK can’t punch someone in the head, you have some leeway if you make contact with the ball or miss it by cms but this was not the case.
✂️ Penalty
41 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Forest move seven points from drop zone! | West Ham 1-2 Nott'm Forest | Premier League highlights" by Sky Spor...
youtube.com
Does the ball not rebound off the west ham player after the tackle. If so it's offside and not a deliberate play consideration situation. The direction and motion of the ball makes me suspect it does.Not offside for me, I see this as deliberate play, defenders intention is to tackle the striker, which he achieves sending the ball away from goal towards the touchline with a solid interception. Did the player obtain an advantage from the offside position, is this a consideration?
✂️ Deliberate play
44 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Forest move seven points from drop zone! | West Ham 1-2 Nott'm Forest | Premier League highlights" by Sky Spor...
Clear penalty for me, GK can’t punch someone in the head, you have some leeway if you make contact with the ball or miss it by cms but this was not the case.
✂️ Penalty
41 seconds · Clipped by DJIC · Original video "Forest move seven points from drop zone! | West Ham 1-2 Nott'm Forest | Premier League highlights" by Sky Spor...
Pen for me.
socal lurker
RefChat Addict
NO! It either is or isn’t. Never conflate “gaining an advantage” as a reason to not call OS. The use of gaining an advantage in Law 11 is probably the most twisted use of the English language in the entire book. It ONLY applies to deflections/rebounds played by the OSP player. Look at the definition—it has nothing to do with the English meaning of gaining n advantage.
(Historical note: this abuse of the English language comes from trying not to change language from the past. A few decades ago, it was an offense to seek to gain an advantage from OSP—which kinda meant that if you didn’t realize you were off and totally stop playing, you’d get called for it. “Seek” was removed, leaving behind actually gaining an advantage, and the meaning of that shrunk down to what we have today, losing the connection to the actual words. End rant.
zipperdude
New Member
The offside may be correct by the letter of the law, but I can easily understand why this is controversial and should maybe be looked at