DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 58292--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: ClaretandBlue06
Date: January 14, 2023, 6:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
One thing I will comment on whether it was offside or not.
Time to bring sin bins in for players around reffing and
berating them
Fernandes reaction and the rest of the Utd players going over to
Cann who in my opinion put the flag up correctly was over the
top and should have to spend 10 mins in the sin bin to stop.
Then it was Citys turn who didn’t agree with Stuart Atwell
awarding the goal. It would stop players getting in refs faces
and help the ref get on with their jobs.
Grealish reaction at the end needs clamping down on too.
Reffing is a tough job and it’s not made easy by grown men
acting like kids.
Personally I’ve found the bin works when I’ve used it in
grassroots football. It’s time for FIFA the Fa, Webb and Co,
the premier league and EFL to get a grip.
#Post#: 58294--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: flipmode
Date: January 14, 2023, 8:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Attwell in Stuart Attwell having a shocker. /sarcasm
I've read and re-read these, taken directly from the FA's own
website, and legitimately don't understand how this hasn't
applied in this instance.
--- Quote ---
>
> clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this
action impacts on an opponent or
> making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability
of an opponent to play the ball
>
> 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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and
impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the
offence should be penalised under Law 12
>
--- End Quote ---
Rashford clearly impedes the progress of defender, and it can be
argued keeper too, by running alongside the ball before not
touching it and letting Fernandes benefit from this.
#Post#: 58296--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: ajb95
Date: January 15, 2023, 1:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: flipmode link ---
>
> Stuart Attwell in Stuart Attwell having a shocker. /sarcasm
>
> I've read and re-read these, taken directly from the FA's own
website, and legitimately don't understand how this hasn't
applied in this instance.
>
> [quote]
> clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this
action impacts on an opponent or
> making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability
of an opponent to play the ball
>
> 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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and
impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the
offence should be penalised under Law 12
>
--- End Quote ---
Rashford clearly impedes the progress of defender, and it can be
argued keeper too, by running alongside the ball before not
touching it and letting Fernandes benefit from this.
[/quote]
But he doesn’t. Akanji makes the crucuail mistake of stopping
and not playing to the whistle allowing fernandes to get there
first. The goalkeeper is in no position to make a save so t has
to be a goal.
If that was disallowed Attwell wouldn’t find himself in the
championship he would have been in league 2 for a month due to
not applying the LOTG correctly and giving a goal
As a poster correctly says: play to the whistle especially when
there’s VAR
#Post#: 58297--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: flipmode
Date: January 15, 2023, 3:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> But he doesn’t. Akanji makes the crucuail mistake of stopping
and not playing to the whistle allowing fernandes to get there
first. The goalkeeper is in no position to make a save so t has
to be a goal.
> If that was disallowed Attwell wouldn’t find himself in the
championship he would have been in league 2 for a month due to
not applying the LOTG correctly and giving a goal
>
> As a poster correctly says: play to the whistle especially
when there’s VAR
>
--- End Quote ---
By your reasoning (and that of Attwell/Cann) that then means
Akanji has to go through the back of Rashford for him to be
deemed offside? That's a dangerous precedent moving forward and
completely contradicts the remit of the referee to be there to
ensure the safety of the players.
#Post#: 58301--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: January 15, 2023, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Fan link=topic=4428.msg58235#msg58235
date=1673713129]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=4428.msg58232#msg58232
date=1673712050]
> Was it an on-field decision in the end to award the goal or
did it come from VAR?
>
--- End Quote ---
Once it was established Rashford didn't touch the ball, isn't it
then a subjective decision as to whether he was interfering with
an opponent? I believe VAR only deals with offsides that are
deemed factual. There could have been chat between referee and
VAR, and there have been incidents previously when VAR has
advised an OFR
to assess whether or not there is interference. It appeared to
me that Attwell took the view that Rashford was not interfering
and that therefore Oliver wouldn't get further involved.
[/quote] I guess that if I were a United fan I'd make a similar
argument. Of course we don't know what interaction there was
between the onfield opfficials and VAR (and it is rather worse
at United and Liverpool as I understand they don't even have
screens for the spectators to be advised of what is going on.
And we saw another shambles at Anfield in the week.)
However you migth expect me to see things differently.
The offside law states (I think we all agree tha Rachford was in
an offside position when the ball was played):-
2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played
or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming
involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed
or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to
play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of
vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when
this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the
ability of an opponent to play the ball
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with
an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar
or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an
opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by
deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an
advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball
which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of
the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the
penalty area).
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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and
impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the
offence should be penalised under Law 12
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball
with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before
playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an
opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred
before the offside offence
an offence is committed against a player in an offside
position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball,
or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is
penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball
should be used.
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> I’m just okay with this goal.
>
> There are two primary considerations, as it’s obvious that
Rashford did not touch the ball.
>
> - Did Rashford’s movement/positioning block or interfere with
Akanji’s ability to defend/challenge/ play the ball? That’s what
I looked for, and I’m not at all convinced he was impacted. It’s
certainly debatable, but it’s also not clear - the doubt would
therefore be to remain with the status quo.
>
> - Did Rashford, by leaving the ball at the last second, impact
the goalkeeper’s vision or decision making? I’d also say it
didn’t.
>
> Ordinarily, these types of considerations are made for
instances like crosses into the area, when the goalkeeper or
defenders are clearly impacted.
>
> Rashford and Fernandes took up the same space on the pitch
when the ball was struck, and at no point did Ederson need to
change his position.
>
> I’m comfortable with the Law 11 interpretation, and also quite
pleased that it was done on the field of play.
>
--- End Quote ---
Affy Moose identifies two significant elements :-
1 Does the attacker interfere with the defender's ability to
defend?
[img]
HTML https://scontent.fgla3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/325668484_1287978038415689_7849828572209617197_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=SWnrhh-oIjEAX9bgNn5&_nc_ht=scontent.fgla3-2.fna&oh=00_AfDfLZTx23Ye8YHSgUgBXwSHdCmf3-INYYn4XI8JIjn4aw&oe=63C83DDD[/img]
At this point Akinji and Fernandez look to me to be more or less
equidistant from the ball, but Akinji cannot run directly to the
ball because Rachford is in a direct line between Akinji and the
ball - hence Akinji's ability to defend the ball is clearly
impeded. Who would have got to the ball first is a guess - the
ball was running slightly in Fernandez favour but Akinji could
have slid in to touch the ball away whilst Fernandez had to
actually be able to get a shot away. So I think that with
Rachford out of the way it is a fairly even race for the ball.
2 Did the possibility that either Rachford or Fernandez might
have played the ball impact on Ederson's decision making?
Affy Moose's opinion is based on a physical impossibility -
Rachford and Fernandez cannot occupy the same space. One is to
the left of the ball the other is to the right of the ball the
other is to the left of the ball, one will strike the ball with
his left foot one with his right - it is more likely that
Rachford will shoot to Ederson's right and Fernandez to
Ederson's left. So in my opinion Edersons decision making is
impacted by Rachford leaving the ball at the last moment.
[/quote]
I'm not sure if the second question is relevant within the laws?
I think it would need Rashford to clearly attempt to play the
ball for that to become a factor - did Rashford clearly attempt
to play the ball or deliberately not play the ball?
If he didn't clearly attempt to play the ball, block an
opponent's vision or challenge an opponent then we only have the
final point of the four left - making an obvious action which
clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
This last point seems quite specific and has a pretty high
threshold with words like 'obvious' and 'clearly' - I think the
actions would need to stop e.g. Ederson from being able to play
the ball rather than just impacting the opponent.
#Post#: 58302--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: January 15, 2023, 3:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> [quote author=Ref Fan link=topic=4428.msg58235#msg58235
date=1673713129]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=4428.msg58232#msg58232
date=1673712050]
> Was it an on-field decision in the end to award the goal or
did it come from VAR?
>
--- End Quote ---
Once it was established Rashford didn't touch the ball, isn't it
then a subjective decision as to whether he was interfering with
an opponent? I believe VAR only deals with offsides that are
deemed factual. There could have been chat between referee and
VAR, and there have been incidents previously when VAR has
advised an OFR
to assess whether or not there is interference. It appeared to
me that Attwell took the view that Rashford was not interfering
and that therefore Oliver wouldn't get further involved.
[/quote] I guess that if I were a United fan I'd make a similar
argument. Of course we don't know what interaction there was
between the onfield opfficials and VAR (and it is rather worse
at United and Liverpool as I understand they don't even have
screens for the spectators to be advised of what is going on.
And we saw another shambles at Anfield in the week.)
However you migth expect me to see things differently.
The offside law states (I think we all agree tha Rachford was in
an offside position when the ball was played):-
2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played
or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming
involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed
or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to
play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of
vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when
this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the
ability of an opponent to play the ball
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with
an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar
or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an
opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by
deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an
advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball
which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of
the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the
penalty area).
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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and
impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the
offence should be penalised under Law 12
a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball
with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before
playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an
opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred
before the offside offence
an offence is committed against a player in an offside
position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball,
or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is
penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball
should be used.
--- Quote from: Affy_Moose link ---
>
> I’m just okay with this goal.
>
> There are two primary considerations, as it’s obvious that
Rashford did not touch the ball.
>
> - Did Rashford’s movement/positioning block or interfere with
Akanji’s ability to defend/challenge/ play the ball? That’s what
I looked for, and I’m not at all convinced he was impacted. It’s
certainly debatable, but it’s also not clear - the doubt would
therefore be to remain with the status quo.
>
> - Did Rashford, by leaving the ball at the last second, impact
the goalkeeper’s vision or decision making? I’d also say it
didn’t.
>
> Ordinarily, these types of considerations are made for
instances like crosses into the area, when the goalkeeper or
defenders are clearly impacted.
>
> Rashford and Fernandes took up the same space on the pitch
when the ball was struck, and at no point did Ederson need to
change his position.
>
> I’m comfortable with the Law 11 interpretation, and also quite
pleased that it was done on the field of play.
>
--- End Quote ---
Affy Moose identifies two significant elements :-
1 Does the attacker interfere with the defender's ability to
defend?
[img]
HTML https://scontent.fgla3-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/325668484_1287978038415689_7849828572209617197_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=1&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=SWnrhh-oIjEAX9bgNn5&_nc_ht=scontent.fgla3-2.fna&oh=00_AfDfLZTx23Ye8YHSgUgBXwSHdCmf3-INYYn4XI8JIjn4aw&oe=63C83DDD[/img]
At this point Akinji and Fernandez look to me to be more or less
equidistant from the ball, but Akinji cannot run directly to the
ball because Rachford is in a direct line between Akinji and the
ball - hence Akinji's ability to defend the ball is clearly
impeded. Who would have got to the ball first is a guess - the
ball was running slightly in Fernandez favour but Akinji could
have slid in to touch the ball away whilst Fernandez had to
actually be able to get a shot away. So I think that with
Rachford out of the way it is a fairly even race for the ball.
2 Did the possibility that either Rachford or Fernandez might
have played the ball impact on Ederson's decision making?
Affy Moose's opinion is based on a physical impossibility -
Rachford and Fernandez cannot occupy the same space. One is to
the left of the ball the other is to the right of the ball the
other is to the left of the ball, one will strike the ball with
his left foot one with his right - it is more likely that
Rachford will shoot to Ederson's right and Fernandez to
Ederson's left. So in my opinion Edersons decision making is
impacted by Rachford leaving the ball at the last moment.
[/quote]
Thanks for the review.
The one aspect that is problematic is that you’re engaging
hypotheticals.
“Impact” isn’t measured in what might have happened otherwise,
but what observably did occur.
Akanji didn’t try to make a play on the ball. He is
theoretically impacted but an no point was he prevented. Therein
lies the problem.
It is the same reasoning why we don’t give offside (prior to Law
11 Guidance change) for a defender arguing “but I had to play
the ball because the striker was behind me”. Yes, that’s of
course true, but your *ability* to play the ball wasn’t
impacted.
Ederson makes no movement to react to Rashford, and Rashford
makes no kicking motion, so for me that’s a weak argument
(though, probably the strongest one for awarding offside).
#Post#: 58303--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Affy_Moose
Date: January 15, 2023, 3:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: flipmode link ---
>
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=4428.msg58296#msg58296
date=1673769429]
> But he doesn’t. Akanji makes the crucuail mistake of stopping
and not playing to the whistle allowing fernandes to get there
first. The goalkeeper is in no position to make a save so t has
to be a goal.
> If that was disallowed Attwell wouldn’t find himself in the
championship he would have been in league 2 for a month due to
not applying the LOTG correctly and giving a goal
>
> As a poster correctly says: play to the whistle especially
when there’s VAR
>
--- End Quote ---
By your reasoning (and that of Attwell/Cann) that then means
Akanji has to go through the back of Rashford for him to be
deemed offside? That's a dangerous precedent moving forward and
completely contradicts the remit of the referee to be there to
ensure the safety of the players.
[/quote]
Not at all. A Man City defender has to be impacted by impeding
progress, affecting ability to play the ball, or blocking
vision.
None of those occur. Rashford hasn’t physically impeded anyone
because no one actually attempts to get to the ball/challenge
for it during the time in which it is near Rashford.
“I would have done something different if the player wasn’t
there” is only relevant if one of the above applies.
Of course, if the FA/SFA/UEFA/IFAB provide some guidance
otherwise then I’ll happily take it.
#Post#: 58305--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: ajb95
Date: January 15, 2023, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: flipmode link ---
>
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=4428.msg58296#msg58296
date=1673769429]
> But he doesn’t. Akanji makes the crucuail mistake of stopping
and not playing to the whistle allowing fernandes to get there
first. The goalkeeper is in no position to make a save so t has
to be a goal.
> If that was disallowed Attwell wouldn’t find himself in the
championship he would have been in league 2 for a month due to
not applying the LOTG correctly and giving a goal
>
> As a poster correctly says: play to the whistle especially
when there’s VAR
>
--- End Quote ---
By your reasoning (and that of Attwell/Cann) that then means
Akanji has to go through the back of Rashford for him to be
deemed offside? That's a dangerous precedent moving forward and
completely contradicts the remit of the referee to be there to
ensure the safety of the players.
[/quote]
I said in my original post on page 1 that I don’t hatred with
the law, I think the law lets itself down a bit here. But the
goal is technically and absolutely legal. According to the LOTG
No other decision can be made
#Post#: 58307--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Hendo
Date: January 15, 2023, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Without commenting on the validity of the “goal”, for me it
raises more questions about how and when VAR becomes involved.
We have seen over the years so many excellent goals
frustratingly ruled out after a lengthy VAR review because the
strikers toe or nose strayed fractionally off side. Here it is
more obvious that Rashford was in an offside position, the
question being the amount of interference and influence he had.
Surely this would have been an ideal and valid case for a VAR
review to check this and come to a decision, rather than farting
about looking for offsides by centimetres.
On another tack it will be interesting to see if Howard Webb is
true to his aim of referees becoming more transparent and is
prepared to give his take on this incident.
#Post#: 58311--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Claretman
Date: January 15, 2023, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Could one say that by rashford running about thirty yards
towards the ball that he was attempting to play the ball ?.
In most cases if a player thinks he is offside he refrains from
moving towards the ball, usually by standing motionless.
Personally with the two attackers standing so close to one
another when the shot is taken and both those players coming
from quite a considerable distance they are both active and
interfering with play, i appreciate the wording of the law says
differently.
Think the written law makes an ass of itself in this case,
similar to the Rodri robbing Mings when coming from an offside
position a few years ago.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page