WOL Vs WHU

[socal lurker]

View attachment 7238
Personally I don't understand why this is causing the debate that it is.
IMO clearly obstructing line of vision and so "The player must be penalised....."

Because Law 11 doesn’t penalize blocking vision, it penalizes blocking vision that prevents an opponent from being able to p,ay the ball. Since the GK had no possible opportunity to play the ball, it doesn’t meet the second part of the requirement. While there is usually some doubt on that point, and doubt should (IMO) be resolved in favor of the GK, is there really any doubt that the GK had no chance whatsoever and that the he was therefore not prevented from being able to play the ball? (I don’t think the diagram removes the requirement.)

 

[Quarryref]

@socal lurker and @JamesL I have sympathy with both points of view.

If you just look at the diagram, you would say this 'must be' penalised.

If you just read the text of the Law as a piece of English language.....

'preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision'

... you can argue both parts of the sentence have to be true for it to be an offence, so if you don't think the GK has been prevented from being able to play the ball, there is no offence.

The slight ambiguity with the wording is that you could also argue that a striker sat in the keeper's lap prevents him from playing the ball wherever it is and that is sufficient to meet the test

 

[JamesL]

Because Law 11 doesn’t penalize blocking vision, it penalizes blocking vision that prevents an opponent from being able to p,ay the ball.

Yes. Prevents them from or being able to. So did it actually stop them or was their ability to play the ball prevented.

Since the GK had no possible opportunity to play the ball, it doesn’t meet the second part of the requirement.

That is very subjective. There are probably extreme examples where we can say 100% there was no chance but this is a bit butterfly effect. Had the vision not been obstructed the keeper might very well have been better placed to be able to play the ball

While there is usually some doubt on that point, and doubt should (IMO) be resolved in favor of the GK, is there really any doubt that the GK had no chance whatsoever and that the he was therefore not prevented from being able to play the ball? (I don’t think the diagram removes the requirement.)

Absolutely there is doubt. As above if his vision wasn't obstructed then he might have been able to play the ball.

Fwiw I think this is such a straightforward offside call. Because of the obstruction the keeper can't even decide which way to dive to make an attempt i.e. he is clearly prevented from being able to play the ball.

 

[RustyRef]

Still think it is a clear offside, and the diagram from the law supports that. Dale Johnson in his blog points out that there have been similar situations this season where the goal has been disallowed based on VAR advice, the only reason they weren't discussed to death is that they didn't affect the outcome. In all of these the independent key match incidents panel unanimously voted that offside was the correct decision. Article here if interested. https://www.espn.com/soccer/story/_...ew-liverpool-arsenal-penalties-wolves-offside

Somewhat comically I've also heard ex-players say this is another example why they should be in the VAR booth. Yet there seems to be a total mix from ex-players as to whether this was offside or not, so them being in the booth would be helpful how exactly?

 

[Gabriel]

Somewhat comically I've also heard ex-players say this is another example why they should be in the VAR booth.

Offside or not, this does not support that argument. It will never happen and rightfully so, some of them don't know what is handball, never mind contributing to subjective offsides. It is not a good idea IMHO. The debates online show this. A lot of ex-players points are based on irrelevant facts. At least qualified match officials can have a debate supported by the LOTG, not by what happened 30/40 years ago.

 

[RustyRef]

Offside or not, this does not support that argument. It will never happen and rightfully so, some of them don't know what is handball, never mind contributing to subjective offsides. It is not a good idea IMHO. The debates online show this. A lot of ex-players points are based on irrelevant facts. At least qualified match officials can have a debate supported by the LOTG, not by what happened 30/40 years ago.

You won't get any disagreement from me on that !!

 

[bloovee]

I'm getting really fed up with the MOTD pundits and their ilk. even when they put the rules up they still don't understand them. For me, the Wolves player is clearly obstructing Fabianski's line of sight. Is there a debate as to whether it prevented Fabianski from playing the ball? Yes, there's a debate, but he was less than a yard away, and I'd imagine this would be given at lots of different levels. It isn't the awful decision so many are claiming, and I'd be amazed if the review group doesn't subsequently come out and support the decision.

They should really start throwing the book at O'Neil for his post-match comments.

Only if they throw the book at all the officials who've given poor decisions against Wolves this season.

 

[RefereeX]

Only if they throw the book at all the officials who've given poor decisions against Wolves this season.

So we're saying O'Neil is justified for saying that you can only determine this to be offside if you've no understanding of the game and bemoaning that he didn't receive an explanation as to the decision but then later admitting he wasn't calm enough to receive an explanation, because they've had a couple of other poor decisions this season?

 

[bloovee]

@socal lurker and @JamesL I have sympathy with both points of view.

If you just look at the diagram, you would say this 'must be' penalised.

If you just read the text of the Law as a piece of English language.....
'preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision'

... you can argue both parts of the sentence have to be true for it to be an offence, so if you don't think the GK has been prevented from being able to play the ball, there is no offence.

The slight ambiguity with the wording is that you could also argue that a striker sat in the keeper's lap prevents him from playing the ball wherever it is and that is sufficient to meet the test

Or you read it that clearly obstructing the line of vision is what defines the preventing bit...

 

[JamesL]

Or you read it that clearly obstructing the line of vision is what defines the preventing bit...

Which is how I read it, especially given how that is then translated in the guidelines to match officials.

 

[Quarryref]

Or you read it that clearly obstructing the line of vision is what defines the preventing bit...

That's my point - you could read it that way. However, it doesn't work literally without a qualification. What if the player whose line of vision was obstructed was a defender 20 yards away ? Common sense says it only applies where the opponent had some chance of playing the ball, but that brings us back to where we started ...

For what it's worth, I think offside is the correct call. Whilst the keeper probably doesn't save it, for me he only has to have the tiniest chance of getting there for it to be disallowed

 

[bloovee]

Offside or not, this does not support that argument. It will never happen and rightfully so, some of them don't know what is handball, never mind contributing to subjective offsides. It is not a good idea IMHO. The debates online show this. A lot of ex-players points are based on irrelevant facts. At least qualified match officials can have a debate supported by the LOTG, not by what happened 30/40 years ago.

For "irrelevant facts", read an understanding of the game that goes beyond knowing what this year's law book says (or what PGMOL thinks it should say). Not just what "interfering" means, but some horrible jump tackles not being penalised, whatever a "high bar" means for clear pushes, etc etc.

 

[bloovee]

Which is how I read it, especially given how that is then translated in the guidelines to match officials.

...whether intended or not! I suspect the diagrams are drawn by someone not on the IFAB that drafted the wording.

 

[JamesL]

...whether intended or not! I suspect the diagrams are drawn by someone not on the IFAB that drafted the wording.

Weird thing to suspect. I would imagine that whatever goes in the book is sanctioned by the board.
Despite what we think, whenever I communicate with IFAb they generally stand by what they have written being what they think is meant.

 

[bloovee]

Weird thing to suspect. I would imagine that whatever goes in the book is sanctioned by the board.
Despite what we think, whenever I communicate with IFAb they generally stand by what they have written being what they think is meant.

I could cite one change in diagram that I think reflected disagreement between refs over one interpretation. Sorry to be cryptic but it would derail the thread!

 

[Paul_10]

Interesting Mark Halsey says the goal should of been given so if a former referee says that then clearly it's not as black and white as it seems? I am aware Halsey does seem to have a grudge against the PGMOL so probably using it as an excuse to have ago at them.

 

[JamesL]

Interesting Mark Halsey says the goal should of been given so if a former referee says that then clearly it's not as black and white as it seems? I am aware Halsey does seem to have a grudge against the PGMOL so probably using it as an excuse to have ago at them.

So does Keith Hackett. But it's in the interest of the agendas they seem to be running so I often take what they say with a pinch of salt, truth be told.

 

[socal lurker]

Weird thing to suspect. I would imagine that whatever goes in the book is sanctioned by the board.
Despite what we think, whenever I communicate with IFAb they generally stand by what they have written being what they think is meant.

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.

 

[The Gump]

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.

I think your interpretation is fair and balanced, and it's an issue with the LOTG that they're open to such interpretation and the guidance often leads to another conclusion (in this case that it is offside).

My personal view is that it was entirely the correct decision, and at worst fully justified under the LOTG and Guidance (and I suspect if it hasn't already by the Key Match Incident Panel).

I agree with you that they should add clarity as you suggest as they only reason a player is stood there in the first place is to distract/impede/make life hard for the keeper.

 

[The Ginger Ref]

Had the vision not been obstructed the keeper might very well have been better placed to be able to play the ball

Thought you said obstruction didn’t exist?