DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95229--------------------------------------------------
Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 13, 2025, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Seems like maybe another VAR clanger right at the end on the
equalising goal.
Flick on from the long throw, Outtara looks clearly offside and
tries to play the ball, certainly impacting the defender.
No idea why this hasn’t been reviewed and disallowed. Seems
pretty clear cut to me?
Overall Attwell had a good game. Consistent decision making and
good authority. Sadly let down by VAR at the end, pretty sure
had he been sent to the monitor the goal would be disallowed.
#Post#: 95244--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: ajb95
Date: September 14, 2025, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not offside. I like Attwell his fitness is exemplary but felt he
struggled a bit tonight with control and authority of the game.
Understandable in a derby game.
#Post#: 95250--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 14, 2025, 7:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not offside for what reason?
Outtara has been confirmed as being in an offside position at
the flick on. He then tries to kick the ball while running in
front of the defender.
How is that not interfering under rule 11.2?
#Post#: 95271--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Banana
Date: September 14, 2025, 2:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello Chelsea Fan Marvin, can you point to the part of Law 11.2
that you believe has been breached?
#Post#: 95275--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 14, 2025, 2:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep.
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
The last points. Outtara clearly attempts to play the ball which
is close. His actions impact Reece James.
Outtara makes an obvious action which impacts on James.
If he had been stood still, or even run back in front of James
but not attempted to play the ball then it’s likely OK.
But running back in front of James and trying to play the ball
has to be interfering.
#Post#: 95276--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Banana
Date: September 14, 2025, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So you are relying on
"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"
I suggest you watch it closely because that clearly does not
happen.
The ball wasn't "close" as evidenced by the fact that a full
stretch of his leg didn't and couldn't reach the ball.
At no point does James touch or otherwise check his movements
towards the ball. James is clearly able to (also) stretch for
the ball and is unimpeded by anyone.
It posts like yours that don't help with this forum with I
thought was meant to be objective and not some partisan appaling
for stuff that simply "didn't happen"
#Post#: 95283--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: ajb95
Date: September 15, 2025, 3:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Banana link ---
>
> So you are relying on
>
> "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"
>
> I suggest you watch it closely because that clearly does not
happen.
>
> The ball wasn't "close" as evidenced by the fact that a full
stretch of his leg didn't and couldn't reach the ball.
> At no point does James touch or otherwise check his movements
towards the ball. James is clearly able to (also) stretch for
the ball and is unimpeded by anyone.
>
> It posts like yours that don't help with this forum with I
thought was meant to be objective and not some partisan appaling
for stuff that simply "didn't happen"
>
--- End Quote ---
This is correct and for me isn’t offside. However, I remember a
similar incident a couple of years ago between Fulham and Man
United where Maguire was given offside for jumping for the ball
which went way over his head and he had zero chance of reaching
it with the ball then landing at a man United player to cross
#Post#: 95284--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 15, 2025, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ajb95 link ---
>
> [quote author=Banana link=topic=7223.msg95276#msg95276
date=1757881073]
> So you are relying on
>
> "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"
>
> I suggest you watch it closely because that clearly does not
happen.
>
> The ball wasn't "close" as evidenced by the fact that a full
stretch of his leg didn't and couldn't reach the ball.
> At no point does James touch or otherwise check his movements
towards the ball. James is clearly able to (also) stretch for
the ball and is unimpeded by anyone.
>
> It posts like yours that don't help with this forum with I
thought was meant to be objective and not some partisan appaling
for stuff that simply "didn't happen"
>
--- End Quote ---
This is correct and for me isn’t offside. However, I remember a
similar incident a couple of years ago between Fulham and Man
United where Maguire was given offside for jumping for the ball
which went way over his head and he had zero chance of reaching
it with the ball then landing at a man United player to cross
[/quote]
There was Maguire in the Fulham game (far less interference, but
as he was in an offside position and attempted to play the ball,
the ref was sent to the monitor because it's a subjective call
and one the referee needs to make the decision on), and there
was the Saints goal at Brighton last year which was ruled out
when the ball went behind a Saints player who thrust out a leg.
Outtara had much more of an impact than either of those given
his positioning and actions.
We're being asked to believe that the VAR - in the short period
of time he took to review - identified the offside, confirmed
with the ref that the ref knew about the offside, and then
quickly decided that a player 5 yards out, middle of goal,
trying to play the ball in front of a defender is not
interfering and that the ref was fully aware of all of that
having noted it in real time?! That simply doesn't pass the
sniff test in the slightest given the time that is taken over
subjective decisions.
As for club bias, you'll note me clearly stating that the
decision to disallow Fulham's goal was incorrect.
"I think Ouattara has definitely interfered there. He's actually
reached for the ball, the ball has bounced in between him, the
other attacking player and Reece James and then gone all the way
through. He reaches for the ball, which impacts James. You can't
see any real touch from him but, ultimately, the fact he's gone
for it means he's affected the play. If the flick-on initially
went to the goalscorer there, he wouldn't interfere in play, but
the fact it has dropped right in between the players is
interference. That would bother me as a player."
Jay Bothroyd explaining exactly how a player who is in the
middle of the 6 yard box and goes for the ball simply has to be
interfering.
I can just about get on board with the arguments that an offside
player who doesn't try to play the ball can be given onside
(thinking about Liverpool's winner against Everton last season,
even though I think it should have been flagged) but I simply
fail to see how Outtara isn't interfering given his position and
actions.
"Dango Ouattara is in an offside position when the ball is
flicked on after the throw-in. Even though he doesn’t touch the
ball, he clearly moves towards it and interferes with a
defender’s ability to play the ball therefore he is interfering
with play, that’s offside.”
That's from Mark Clattenburg.
So less of the personal insults please Banana.
#Post#: 95289--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Failed Ref
Date: September 15, 2025, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Dale Johnson disagrees with Mark Clattenburg. Johnson's view is
that it is not a clear cut call and that the on field decision
should therefore stand. Apparently, it was discussed by the
officials i.e. not missed. It was shall we say a 50:50 call and
Johnson suggests (my interpretation) that both sets of
supporters could feel aggrieved if the decision went against
them.
#Post#: 95290--------------------------------------------------
Re: Stuart Attwell - Brentford v Chelsea
DIR By: Marvin Grapevine
Date: September 15, 2025, 8:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Failed Ref link ---
>
> Dale Johnson disagrees with Mark Clattenburg. Johnson's view
is that it is not a clear cut call and that the on field
decision should therefore stand. Apparently, it was discussed by
the officials i.e. not missed. It was shall we say a 50:50 call
and Johnson suggests (my interpretation) that both sets of
supporters could feel aggrieved if the decision went against
them.
>
--- End Quote ---
I hope it is featured on Howard Webb's show because I don't
believe the offside was spotted and I'd love clarification on
it.
However, the notion that a player can be 6 yards out, middle of
the box, offside, and attempt to kick the ball in front of a
defender but *not* be interfering is not supportable under 11.2
IMO. It simply has to be offside.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page