DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 58317--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: rustyref
Date: January 15, 2023, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hendo link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
VAR were involved, as they check every goal. If they had any
concerns with it they would have recommended a review, but as
the decision was completely correct in law there was no way they
could get involved.
#Post#: 58323--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Claretman
Date: January 15, 2023, 7:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> [quote author=Hendo link=topic=4428.msg58307#msg58307
date=1673780353]
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
VAR were involved, as they check every goal. If they had any
concerns with it they would have recommended a review, but as
the decision was completely correct in law there was no way they
could get involved.
[/quote]
A review could not be recommended if Stuart Attwell told the var
In his opinion Rashford wasnt interfering as that is a
subjective call i would think.
#Post#: 58346--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Tweed
Date: January 15, 2023, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yeah, but what was he going to see the second time to change his
subjective view?
If that goal is right in law and it seems to be, the law is
wrong. There is no doubt Rashford gained a huge advantage by
being offside and dragged a defender. The defending was
dreadful too but that's a whole different debate.
#Post#: 58366--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: January 15, 2023, 4:19 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Affy Moose, thanks for your response, perhaps I can expand on my
views a little.
I understand that there is an interpretation of the offside law
that can be taken that fits with your comments. But like many
of the laws whilst it codifies the parameters of the law it
doesn't really give a steer on the purpose of the law that
should underlie all decisions made within that law. Hence we
finish up with laws that, at times, can mean all things to all
men and that is a serious flaw which is exposed in this
incident. Despite, or maybe because of, IFAB's repeated
attempts to "clarify" the laws they have, to my eyes at least,
become fairly meaningless to what actually happens on the field.
So whilst the decision may be "correct" according to the law in
one sense taking the another interpretation of the same law
could lead to an alternative decision which equally could be
seen to be compliant with the law. In this sense we are both
speaking in conjecture.
Let me take a couple of examples that seem relevant in this
case.
You have stated "Akanji didn’t try to make a play on the ball.
He is theoretically impacted but an no point was he prevented.
The trouble with this statement is a clause in the law that,
effectively, prevents Akinji from challenging for the ball. By
virtue of his offside position Rashford has gained an advantage
of around 2 metres on Akinji. So any challenge from Akinji has
to be from behind with a very high chance, as Cancelo found out
against Fuilham, of committing a foul. The law states " 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." So Rashford has a degree of protection against
a challenge from behind. Akinji must choose either to go to the
right or the left of Rashford - he chooses, probably wrongly, to
go right - perhaps anticipating that Walker will win the foot
race with Fernandes and force Rashford to move to his right.
Had he gone to the left he could probably have got between
Fernandes and the ball - but hindsight is a wonderful thing and
had Rashford not been involved he would not have had to make
that choice.
Secondly the law states -" 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;".
I came across this image which shows the effect that Rashford
has by "airbrushing" out of the picture, There is a slight
difference of scaling between the two pictures but I don't think
it impacts on the overall message.
[img]
HTML https://dail.me.uk/____impro/1/onewebmedia/483FD589-6BEA-4F24-8799-0C4891F81403.jpeg?etag=W%2F%22630a3-63c473bf%22&sourceContentType=image%2Fjpeg&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=300%2B169&extract=0%2B0%2B300%2B169&quality=85[/img]<br
/> I hope this image shows OK, it is OK on my PC, if not I'll
try
and load it by another route or provide a link to it.
I think it is difficult not to conclude that "at this moment",
bearing in mind the "protection" Rashford has, that Rashford's
play "interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the
ball ".
From this I would say that an offside decision is within the law
and, importantly is in keeping with the purpose of the law.
There is, I think a second debate to be had - that is whether
the game would be better without an offside law - on balance I
think so.
On your second point about whether Ederaon is disadvantaged by
having two player either of whom could shoot: two of your
comments seem to sit a bit uncomfortable together for me. In
your first post you say "Did Rashford, by leaving the ball at
the last second, impact the goalkeeper’s vision or decision
making?" and in you response to my post you say "
Ederson makes no movement to react to Rashford, and Rashford
makes no kicking motion". I know they are not totally
incompatible but in practical terms I see little difference
between "leaving the ball at the last moment" and "makes no
kicking motion". In either case Ederson has two considerations
- until the last second.
#Post#: 58368--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: bruntyboy
Date: January 15, 2023, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Microscopist link ---
>
> Affy Moose, thanks for your response, perhaps I can expand on
my views a little.
>
> I understand that there is an interpretation of the offside
law that can be taken that fits with your comments. But like
many of the laws whilst it codifies the parameters of the law it
doesn't really give a steer on the purpose of the law that
should underlie all decisions made within that law. Hence we
finish up with laws that, at times, can mean all things to all
men and that is a serious flaw which is exposed in this
incident. Despite, or maybe because of, IFAB's repeated
attempts to "clarify" the laws they have, to my eyes at least,
become fairly meaningless to what actually happens on the field.
>
> So whilst the decision may be "correct" according to the law
in one sense taking the another interpretation of the same law
could lead to an alternative decision which equally could be
seen to be compliant with the law. In this sense we are both
speaking in conjecture.
>
> Let me take a couple of examples that seem relevant in this
case.
>
> You have stated "Akanji didn’t try to make a play on the ball.
He is theoretically impacted but an no point was he prevented.
>
> The trouble with this statement is a clause in the law that,
effectively, prevents Akinji from challenging for the ball. By
virtue of his offside position Rashford has gained an advantage
of around 2 metres on Akinji. So any challenge from Akinji has
to be from behind with a very high chance, as Cancelo found out
against Fuilham, of committing a foul. The law states " 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." So Rashford has a degree of protection against
a challenge from behind. Akinji must choose either to go to the
right or the left of Rashford - he chooses, probably wrongly, to
go right - perhaps anticipating that Walker will win the foot
race with Fernandes and force Rashford to move to his right.
Had he gone to the left he could probably have got between
Fernandes and the ball - but hindsight is a wonderful thing and
had Rashford not been involved he would not have had to make
that choice.
>
> Secondly the law states -" 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;".
>
> I came across this image which shows the effect that Rashford
has by "airbrushing" out of the picture, There is a slight
difference of scaling between the two pictures but I don't think
it impacts on the overall message.
>
>
[img]
HTML https://dail.me.uk/____impro/1/onewebmedia/483FD589-6BEA-4F24-8799-0C4891F81403.jpeg?etag=W%2F%22630a3-63c473bf%22&sourceContentType=image%2Fjpeg&ignoreAspectRatio&resize=300%2B169&extract=0%2B0%2B300%2B169&quality=85[/img]<br
/> I hope this image shows OK, it is OK on my PC, if not I'll
try
and load it by another route or provide a link to it.
>
> I think it is difficult not to conclude that "at this moment",
bearing in mind the "protection" Rashford has, that Rashford's
play "interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the
ball ".
>
> From this I would say that an offside decision is within the
law and, importantly is in keeping with the purpose of the law.
>
> There is, I think a second debate to be had - that is whether
the game would be better without an offside law - on balance I
think so.
>
> On your second point about whether Ederaon is disadvantaged by
having two player either of whom could shoot: two of your
comments seem to sit a bit uncomfortable together for me. In
your first post you say "Did Rashford, by leaving the ball at
the last second, impact the goalkeeper’s vision or decision
making?" and in you response to my post you say "
> Ederson makes no movement to react to Rashford, and Rashford
makes no kicking motion". I know they are not totally
incompatible but in practical terms I see little difference
between "leaving the ball at the last moment" and "makes no
kicking motion". In either case Ederson has two considerations
- until the last second.
>
--- End Quote ---
"A slight difference of scaling" is quite an understatement.
What is quite interesting in this offside is that earlier in the
game there were 2 or 3 quite tight offside calls for both sides
(which were all correctly given) where the AR in each case
flagged for offside virtually immediately and didn't wait for
the attacking phase of play to come to an end.
#Post#: 58372--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: BabyRef
Date: January 16, 2023, 3:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Other way of looking at it: if it was given as offside would we
still be talking about it now? I doubt it.
#Post#: 58373--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: January 16, 2023, 3:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
One thing that may be worth noting is that Michael Oliver was
TMO and he would have reviewed it. I wonder what his personal
view was or what he would have done? A few months ago would he
have intervened as a TMO? Was he inhibited because of the
apparent desire to use VAR for very clear and obvious errors by
the match Official?
I doubt FIFA will look at this incident but I would like to
think that we will get better clarification off the offside law
and, ideally, clearer wording so that defenders in particular
know what is offside and what isn't.
#Post#: 58376--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: January 16, 2023, 4:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a United fan I was expecting the goal to be disallowed even
after I realised why Fernandes initially was so exasperated and
that Rashford hadn't played the ball.
Having read the various arguments put forward by some esteemed
contributors, I've concluded that under the Law as it stands, it
wasn't incorrect to award the goal. If one is an advocate of
the "No surprises" approach, then the decision would appear to
contradict that, but it just emphasises the different
interpretations of Law that can be applied to support a
particular point of view.
Various comments have been made as to the role of VAR in this.
Michael Oliver would have reviewed the goal as always, but as
has been said, if Attwell saw that Rashford didn't play the ball
and in his view was not interfering, then VAR isn't going to get
involved. A question though: - if neither Cann nor Attwell were
certain whether Rashford touched the ball, could Attwell have
asked or informed VAR of that if he considered it crucial in
deciding whether to allow the goal?
#Post#: 58379--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: January 16, 2023, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Well Dermot on Ref Watch said he would have given offside and
the 2 pundits agreed. The argument was that Rashford impacted
on both Akanji and Ederson. However, DG confirmed that once
Attwell decided Rashford wasn't interfering, it was a subjective
decision and VAR wouldn't get involved. Personally, I'm not
altogether convinced on the reasons claimed for Rashford's
impact, but I wonder if Dermot's view was a semi-official PGMOL
/ Webb view as well.
#Post#: 58381--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell (Man United vs Manchester City)
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: January 16, 2023, 6:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Warnock said on Ref Watch 'I go to co-commentate on
games now and I've no idea what the offside law is and haven't
for the last few years'. I think the suggestion was we were
meant to regard that as someone else's fault but I'd put a fair
amount of the blame on him given the laws are publicly available
to access and he gets paid for appearing on a show called Ref
Watch.
I think it would be good for Webb/PGMO to come out and provide
their views on this, and perhaps also release some of the audio
of the discussion. If they're really going to make some positive
changes then this would be a good place to start.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page