DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67445--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: September 2, 2023, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ref Fan link ---
>
> Out of interest, if in this type of situation, would an AR be
expected to flag even if he was unsure whether the player
touched the ball or was interfering; or would he simply advise
the referee that a player was in an offside position but from
his angle he couldn't tell whether he touched the ball or was
interfering? If the latter, presumably the referee would make
that decision unless he too didn't have a good view. In such a
scenario, wouldn't VAR be expected to advise an OFR as it would
be considered subjective?
> On the other hand, if the Referee says he saw it clearly and
didn't consider the player offside, wouldn't that effectively
shut out VAR?
>
--- End Quote ---
The on-field officials always need to make a decision one way or
the other, although I suppose the certainty with which they
express that to the VAR might have an impact on if an
intervention is made.
I think, in general, the PGMO's preference seems to be for
subjective offsides to largely be left to the on-field team. It
was reported with the Rashford goal in the Manchester derby last
season that the 'Independent Panel' thought that VAR was right
not to get involved but they agreed with Webb that the best
decision would have been for the goal to be disallowed.
In response to post asking about subjective VAR interventions so
far this season Harrington made one for Brentford V Spurs
penalty on Week 1 and there was also the red card in opening
game between Burnley and Man City. Not sure if there have been
others since.
#Post#: 67446--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: September 2, 2023, 9:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Tonydent link ---
>
> [quote author=keith h link=topic=5159.msg67417#msg67417
date=1693672183]
> I remember many moons ago before this continual
reinterpretation of the offside law we had a league referee from
where I live, Cliff Maskell, and his attitude was: if he's on
the field of play then he's interfering, that's why he's there
>
--- End Quote ---
Thankfully these outdated views are (literally) dead and dying
[/quote]
Yes, whilst it might sometimes be tempting to want such a black
and white extreme approach, I think the desire would very
quickly fade once we had situations where the VAR was spending 4
minutes drawing lines to decide if the winger by the corner flag
50 yards from play was marginally in an offside position or not.
desira
#Post#: 67454--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: September 3, 2023, 2:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/attachments/shankly-jpg.91623/
Head on Shankly hits Bill nail
I think it should have been given offside, but I don't think it
was as bad an error as not giving Rashford offside in last
season's Manchester Derby
#Post#: 67455--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: September 3, 2023, 2:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It looks wrong and the keeper can argue he was a distraction but
the Times reporter suggests that as the offside player neither
touched the ball or obstructed the view of the keeper, the goal
has to be awarded. I am not familiar with LOG as it is now
getting to complicated with all the guidelines out there. Is he
correct and that VAR had to allow the goal?
By the way, the same paper heaped praise on Robinson's
performance at Chelsea. Nice to read.
#Post#: 67459--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: rustyref
Date: September 3, 2023, 3:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It can't be interfering with play or gaining an advantage, so
the only option is interfering with an opponent. The
requirements for that are ...
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
For me none of the first 3 apply, but I think his action has
clearly impacted the ability of the keeper being able to play
the ball. The keeper doesn't dive until after the ball has
passed Akanji, he can't as he doesn't know where the ball is
going to go. I guess the issue is it isn't black and white like
whether the player is in an offside position or not, rather it
is a subjective decision, and that is probably why VAR didn't
get involved.
#Post#: 67460--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: September 3, 2023, 4:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the footage, I'd be surprised if Oliver had a clear
view but it's possible he may have done.
Of course, as we were unable to hear or be told what
conversation took place between VAR an Oliver, we don't really
know, but I thought with subjective offside decisions, VAR could
advise an OFR if the referee was unsure or unsighted.
My impression was that VAR took quite a long time over the
review. So were they looking for a clear and obvious error
rather than considering a subjective decision?
#Post#: 67461--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Rory Stride
Date: September 3, 2023, 4:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It was an extremely soft penalty to compound things again for
Fulham. Probably not worthy of a VAR intervention though
#Post#: 67463--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: dave26
Date: September 3, 2023, 4:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’m sorry but for me the Ake goal that was allowed to stand is a
very poor decision , if that is not making an attempt and
interferring with an opponent ( the goalkeeper ) then I don’t
know what is at very least a OFR should have been the minimum
action there .
There really is no defence , Akanji is clearly in a offside
position and distracts the goalkeeper if that isn’t clear and
obvious then I’m sorry but I lose a lot of respect for VAR as
that is the exact kind of incident that it should be used for
and should have reached the correct decision
#Post#: 67464--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Ref Fan
Date: September 3, 2023, 4:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree Dave. It's just a pity we don't know exactly what the
process was, the conversation that took place and why VAR chose
not to intervene.
#Post#: 67465--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Seagull
Date: September 3, 2023, 5:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: rustyref link ---
>
> It can't be interfering with play or gaining an advantage, so
the only option is interfering with an opponent. The
requirements for that are ...
>
> 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
>
> For me none of the first 3 apply, but I think his action has
clearly impacted the ability of the keeper being able to play
the ball. The keeper doesn't dive until after the ball has
passed Akanji, he can't as he doesn't know where the ball is
going to go. I guess the issue is it isn't black and white like
whether the player is in an offside position or not, rather it
is a subjective decision, and that is probably why VAR didn't
get involved.
>
--- End Quote ---
If the GK couldn't dive until the ball had passed the forward
because he couldn't see where the ball was going, then surely,
the forward is obstructing the GK's line of vision and/or
impacting his ability to play the ball? If so, the goal should
be disallowed.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page