DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 67468--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: RefObserver
Date: September 3, 2023, 5:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Seagull link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=5159.msg67459#msg67459
date=1693730586]
> 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.
[/quote]
But given the big dive to the right I don't think he is in line,
hence the only action can be the 4th one as Rusty says which I
agree is relevant.
#Post#: 67470--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Carter
Date: September 3, 2023, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It looked wrong so that should have been enough for VAR to ask
the Ref to view.
Simple as that
#Post#: 67473--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Hendo
Date: September 3, 2023, 6:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a City fan I can’t help but feel that it was wrong and that
Fulham were hard done by. If that decision had been given
against City I would be very unhappy indeed.
#Post#: 67476--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: takethejag
Date: September 3, 2023, 7:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Rory Stride link ---
>
> It was an extremely soft penalty to compound things again for
Fulham. Probably not worthy of a VAR intervention though
>
--- End Quote ---
Agreed, and VAR probably wouldn't have intervened had it not
been given? Some Fulham fans were also angry about Harry Wilson
being denied OGSO by a foul just outside the City area shortly
before the first goal. Personally, I thought it was soft but
wonder if anyone else had a view.
#Post#: 67478--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Seagull
Date: September 3, 2023, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RefObserver link ---
>
> [quote author=Seagull link=topic=5159.msg67465#msg67465
date=1693735482]
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=5159.msg67459#msg67459
date=1693730586]
> 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.
[/quote]
But given the big dive to the right I don't think he is in line,
hence the only action can be the 4th one as Rusty says which I
agree is relevant.
[/quote]
I agree that one way or the other, the goal should have been
disallowed. In my days as an AR (Linesman) on the Kent League
(1978-1989), there's no doubt that I would have flagged, the
Referee would have disallowed the goal for offside and the
decision would have been accepted without question by both
teams. Life was so much simpler then.
#Post#: 67480--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Leggy
Date: September 3, 2023, 7:52 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having not seen the incident, my question is about refereeing
personalities, pecking orders and the possible downside of using
"colleagues" as VAR's.
Would there have been a VAR intervention if the referee was Tony
Harrington and the VAR Michael Oliver?
#Post#: 67499--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: rustyref
Date: September 3, 2023, 1:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Seagull link ---
>
> [quote author=rustyref link=topic=5159.msg67459#msg67459
date=1693730586]
> 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.
[/quote]
What obstructing line of vision has been clarified by IFAB in
the past, it means preventing the opponent from being able to
see the ball. Poorly worded, but a player just being in their
line of vision isn't enough to trigger that clause. But he
absolutely made an action that impacted on the ability of an
opponent to play the ball.
#Post#: 67508--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: flipmode
Date: September 3, 2023, 8:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I thought it should have been offside, but concede that it has
been a long time since I knew what is and is not offside.
[emoji23]
#Post#: 67522--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Microscopist
Date: September 4, 2023, 6:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
To my mind the problem is with the laws as a whole but it is
particularly a problem with offside and handball. The General
problem with the laws is that they don't explain the purpose of
each law.
It is said that Laws/Rules are for the guidance of the wise and
the instruction of fools' LOAF seems to be written with regard
to the latter, and does it badly.
To me it seems as if IFAB try to imagine every possible scenario
and describe the action to be taken in each case. But, of
course, many situations don't quite fit the descriptors and
referees have no basis in the laws to determine whether the
purpose of the law has been breached.
Take law 11 - which starts off by telling us what isn't offside
which is in itself a bit of a strange way to start.
Why not make the law a description of what it is trying to
prevent, for example:-
The purpose of this law is to prevent a player or players
gaining an advantage for their team by being in an offside
position. This should be the primary judgement of the match
officials.
It implies two elements;
Is the player in an offside position when the ball is last
played by a team mate?;
Does the player's team benefit by the player being in an offside
position?.
In deciding on these elements match officials should consider
the guidelines given below - then you can list all the guidance
in a similar manner to the current text.
So when something doesn't quite fit the detailed descriptors the
referee has a basis for making a decision based on the intended
outcome of applying the law.
#Post#: 67523--------------------------------------------------
Re: M OLIVER - Man C v Fulham
DIR By: Scally Bob
Date: September 4, 2023, 7:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The preamble to the LOTG still says IFAB still expects referees
to make decisions within the spirit of the game and ask what
would football want or expect. I think you’d struggle to find
anyone who didn’t expect that to be offside.
I haven’t seen the goalkeeper’s reaction but I’m guessing he
wasn’t happy. At Supply or Contrib I’d expect the flag to go up
but at that level Assistants are still allowed to do the job
they’re trained to do. All this late flag nonsense is another
byproduct of the shambles that is VAR.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 4
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page