The Ref Stop

WOL Vs WHU

socal lurker said:
While I would agree that IFAB has approved the diagrams—which have been in the book for a long time—I also think people are overreading what this diagram conveys. I don’t think the diagram is intended to say that any time a GK has vision blocked it has automatically prevented the GK from making a play. Keeping in mind that the possible OS offense only occurs once the ball is headed, only Superman could have saved that shot from where the GK was in the absence of blocked vision (accepting that his vision was obstructed). This is the hard case for the Law. As I would like to see the shielding and harassment of GKs eradicated from the game, I would be fine with his being established as an OS offense. I just don’t agree that the diagram is intended to do that—if IFAB really meant that blocking the GKs vision is always an offense, it would say that in Law 11, not have the caveat that it has to be preventing a play. But if the PL has give. Instructions to call it that way, it wouldn’t be the first time they have gotten ahead of IFAB on something.
Click to expand...
Then the diagram should have the caveat.

And is it only an offence if the OP is standing that close to the GK?
 
The Ref Stop
bloovee said:
Then the diagram should have the caveat.

And is it only an offence if the OP is standing that close to the GK?
Click to expand...
I do think the interpretation of the Law needs a clarification. I think we need to know which test to apply. Logically, I think there could be be two interpretations of 'preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball'

1. The test is strictly whether the player could have actually played the ball if his/her vision hadn't been obstructed
2. 'Being able to play the ball' just means having the opportunity to play the ball where we would realistically expect such an attempt to be made. This is more like what the diagram implies - an attacker shoots, the GK will attempt to save, regardless of whether we think the attempt would have been successful or not. The GK is prevented from doing so because his/her vision is obstructed.
 
The independent review panel unanimously agreed that the offside decision was correct. And Gary O'Neil has been charged with insulting and / or threatening behaviour towards a match official.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves: Disallowing late goal against West Ham was correct - panel

The Key Match Incidents Panel, which reviews refereeing decisions, backs the decision to disallow Wolves' equaliser against West Ham.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
RustyRef said:
The independent review panel unanimously agreed that the offside decision was correct. And Gary O'Neil has been charged with insulting and / or threatening behaviour towards a match official.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves: Disallowing late goal against West Ham was correct - panel

The Key Match Incidents Panel, which reviews refereeing decisions, backs the decision to disallow Wolves' equaliser against West Ham.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
So, in a nutshell. Managers are blaming referees for getting decisions wrong, when in fact, they don't even know the LOTG ! The pundits should be backing PGMOL in these matters, not adding fuel to the fire.
 
RustyRef said:
The independent review panel unanimously agreed that the offside decision was correct. And Gary O'Neil has been charged with insulting and / or threatening behaviour towards a match official.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves: Disallowing late goal against West Ham was correct - panel

The Key Match Incidents Panel, which reviews refereeing decisions, backs the decision to disallow Wolves' equaliser against West Ham.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
That must be one of the only times the panel has unanimously agreed with a decision this season 🤣
 
RustyRef said:
The independent review panel unanimously agreed that the offside decision was correct. And Gary O'Neil has been charged with insulting and / or threatening behaviour towards a match official.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves: Disallowing late goal against West Ham was correct - panel

The Key Match Incidents Panel, which reviews refereeing decisions, backs the decision to disallow Wolves' equaliser against West Ham.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
OK, well they got one part of the law right, in saying that the offside-positioned player, "restricts what the goalkeeper is able to do."

However, the overall credibility of the decision is not helped them making a statement that runs contrary to the provisions of the law, namely that the player, "clearly impacts his decision-making."

Affecting the opponent's decision-making is not the basis for an offside offence.
 
Peter Grove said:
OK, well they got one part of the law right, in saying that the offside-positioned player, "restricts what the goalkeeper is able to do."

However, the overall credibility of the decision is not helped them making a statement that runs contrary to the provisions of the law, namely that the player, "clearly impacts his decision-making."

Affecting the opponent's decision-making is not the basis for an offside offence.
Click to expand...
"In situations where:
  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball"
You can't decide to go for the ball if you can't move towards it because an OP player is intefering with your movement.
 
RustyRef said:
The independent review panel unanimously agreed that the offside decision was correct. And Gary O'Neil has been charged with insulting and / or threatening behaviour towards a match official.

www.bbc.co.uk

Wolves: Disallowing late goal against West Ham was correct - panel

The Key Match Incidents Panel, which reviews refereeing decisions, backs the decision to disallow Wolves' equaliser against West Ham.
www.bbc.co.uk
Click to expand...
Shame that can't charge Linkeker, Dublin & Wright as well.
 
"The attacker is making contact with the goalkeeper up until the ball is headed towards goal which restricts what the goalkeeper is able to do."

The contact happened before the header so to include this seems irrelevant/superfluous when discussing the offside decision.
 
bester said:
"The attacker is making contact with the goalkeeper up until the ball is headed towards goal which restricts what the goalkeeper is able to do."

The contact happened before the header so to include this seems irrelevant/superfluous when discussing the offside decision.
Click to expand...
It highlights they were adjacent to each other at the time of the header.
 
bloovee said:
"In situations where:
  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball"
You can't decide to go for the ball if you can't move towards it because an OP player is intefering with your movement.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course you can decide to do it - deciding is simply forming a definite intent in your mind to do something. The question is whether his physical ability to act on that decision has been impacted.

For instance, I could decide to go and confront my next door neighbour about a dispute we are having but my friends who are with me, hold me back, thus preventing me from acting on my decision. Their presence didn't mean I couldn't make the decision, it only meant I was prevented from carrying it out.

I think the IFAB has made it pretty clear in the various circulars, clarifications and guidance they have issued over recent years that what is at stake here is the opponent's physical ability to play the ball - not their decision-making capacity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top