Exiled in Texas

This is my view as a referee (of approx 400 U16-U19 games) Goufran was clearly in an offside position, but that is not an offense. To be penalised for being in an offside position you must ALSO be interfering with play or an opponent: Interferring with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate- Should not apply because Gouffran did not play/touch the ball interferring with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or movement - should not apply because Gouffran was not blocking the line of vision and did not prevent Hart from moving or by making a gesture or movement, which in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts the opponent - this should also not apply because Gouffran did not pretent to play the ball, did not attempt to deceive that he would play the ball and did nothing more than evade making contact with the ball So why did the referee crew waive off the goal.....I believe (and several National referees in the US on a referee forum believe) that the referee and the AR each had half of the information needed to make a decision, but neither had the full picture - and putting together these two halves they got the decision wrong. The AR knows that Goufran is in an offside position - but he doesn't "know" if Gouffran made contact with the ball (because from his position on the sideline, with the aspect of the shot), he cannot see a deflection of the balls trajectory, and likely cannot hear it either. So he knows that the player is in an offside position, and he thinks that the ball may/may not have touched Gouffran. From the referee's position - he too cannot really see if the balls trajectory was changed by Gouffran but he will likely suspect it. Watching this for the first time on TV it wasn't clear if Gouffran did indeed avoid contact or not, and the TV angle (see pic) was much better than the referee's position. So the referee is wondering if there was contact from an offside player or not. The first thing the referee will do on seeing the ball enter the goal is to check his AR for a reaction. If the AR is running up back field (to get into position for a kick off) then that is the signal to the referee that the goal is good. If the Flag is up, then the signal is that there was an infraction. And if the AR is standing to attention, and not moving/signalling, then that is the signal to the referee that he has a question/information about the play and thinks the referee should discuss it with them. The neutral stance is designed not to box the referee into a decision that they may not want to make (neither signals a goal or no goal) and allows for a discussion. Now the referee and AR discuss what each saw/thought happened. AR will confirm that player was in an offside position. Now they will confirm if the player interfered with play/opponent. Based on my training and instruction on the LOTG, I can only assume that the referee (and maybe AR) thought that the ball touched Gouffran and was deflected into the goal....and based on that opinion (incorrect as it turns out), the right decision was made according to LOTG. There was no blocking of vision, or blocking of movement - in fact Hart never moved. There was no attempt to deceive or distract the opponent - Hart never even saw Gouffran until after the ball was in the net. BUT neither referee or AR had the necessary line of sight to see if there was a deflection or not. I summise, that each suspected that there might have been contact, and that it was more likely than not that there had been contact. And therefore they convinced each other than there was contact with the ball. At this level of play I do not beleive that a referee would be unaware of the Laws of the Game or how to apply them. They have too many games under their belts, and have been through too many assessments and game reviews to not know the LOTG. BUT they are always basing their decisions on their OPINION of what happened, and they get one view - without replay or slo-mo, regardless of their position on the field or what is happening around them. And they are also subject to the natural pressure of the game - pressure from the players, pressure from the expectation of a perfect game and importantly, pressure from the media (and match assessment) review they know is coming after the game. And so it comes down to a simple mistake by the referee (or AR) in their opinion in seeing what happened (or didn't happen) and from that bad data, the decision process was fatally flawed and produced an incorrect decision. They thought (in my opinion) and maybe convinced each other, that there was contact with the ball by Gouffran and therefore there was an offside infraction.

Exactly....Hart did the usual desperate waive for offside that is common to all defenders who ****** up and just let a player past them. They desperately wave for offside hoping that the AR will rescue them, and in most cases they get no flag (and the AR secretly laughing at them for just how far on-side they were holding the player). In this case, too many additional factors figured into the decision that the referee and AR made together.

Very few of the Laws of the Game are black and white......almost everything is based on the referee's opinion of what happened. And that's where the two sides fall apart because neither have the same opinion as the referee.

This is why I think we will sign some players this window.....the fact that we will need to replace a lot during the summer, so it makes sense to do some now and then some in the summer. This give better continuity and less disruption than trying to bed in 6 new players in the summer.

Those in 18th, 19th and 20th place? Breaking into the top group is where we should be aiming for, and we currently are thereabouts, although looking at the table it seems that mid-table mediocrity is currently 8th/9th place, with 10th-20th all in the relegation battle

Sounded to me like two different scenarios to me......Cabella will only be bought if we sell Cabaye (presume we need the money and also need a place on the field for Cabella to play in), whereas Luuk De Jong will only be sold if MuchenGladBach buy first.

Double whammy really..... Lose the "Villa" name Replace the city name of Aston where you are located with the name of your local rivals Birmingham. Red Bull Birmingham sounds terrible, but Red Bull Aston (or Aston Red Bull) sounds even worse.

dear god, the man is business savvy but by christ that was one mad decision. Is the problem the Business Man in Ashley, or the Fan in us? Paying whatever it takes to get a signing is Shepardesque or Sunderlandesque. Getting held to ransom by other clubs simply raises the amount we pay, and decreases our ability to buy players with the ability we need. Of course, there are exceptions to be made, but not every player is that exception. Theres a 20 mile gap between those two scenarios, surely you can see it? I do see it......but I also see it as a gray area (not black or white) and the question about where black turns to white is somewhere in the gray area. What I hope is that the club do make some exceptions where they see true value.......and then hold firm on some of the others which are a bit more "Meh" such as perhaps Gomis. I think this is happening (but we just don't see the wheels churning). I do believe that we are more on the side of "opportunistic" and "value driven" than the "just pay a bit more to get the player signed".

dear god, the man is business savvy but by christ that was one mad decision. Is the problem the Business Man in Ashley, or the Fan in us? Paying whatever it takes to get a signing is Shepardesque or Sunderlandesque. Getting held to ransom by other clubs simply raises the amount we pay, and decreases our ability to buy players with the ability we need. Of course, there are exceptions to be made, but not every player is that exception.

"you'll love it here, one of the most comfortable benches i've ever sat on. fantastic view of people of inferior capability doing your job instead of you." hahaha (sadly true)

Maybe Vurnon can talk with Siem De Jong and convince him and his brother to sign for NUFC. Would love to see some more Ajax total football playing for us.

Genius !!

Yes, around then we were linked with both Baftimbi Gomis and Mario Gomez......very confusing times

Gold/Sullivan have already said that they must sell to buy, both from a financial view within the club and also from Financial Fair Play rules too

I'm finding even dafter that some are calling for Sherwood even before he had a game based purely on the logic "he's english" And "he used to play for them so he knows them"

The flip side of this is that that they could get released from a 5 year Wes Brown style contract with only two weeks notice so there goes the money. Of course it all depends what the contract between the club and the player stipulates, and what each side has agreed to to get the deal done.

Judging deliberate handball is all about the referee judging intent because without the intent it is accidental (and not a foul). Other than a Suarez type save, or a defender making a finger tip save to tip the ball over the bar, the question of intent will always be subjective. The referees get training in the type of things to look for that signify intentional handling....the usual ones are the ball striking the arm while the arms are in an unnatural position ... This usually means arms away from the body or above the head. Spreading the arms out to make the player look bigger is another intentional handling offense. The reason is that the player intentionally put there arms into areas that they did not need to do to play the ball, and so unless they move their arms out of the way to prevent the ball striking their arm, they have intentionally handled the ball. This is probably why Anita in the Man U game wasn't penalised for the ball striking his arm on hue he goal line......his physical position was chest out, arms back and behind his body attempting to chest the ball clear....the ball strikes his arm when he is attempting to keep them out of the play so no intent. This is also a further refining point for the referee to consider is whether the player could have moved their hands/arms away to prevent the ball from striking them but chose not to. This is a refinement on deciding on ball to hand or hand to ball. Just because the hand was already in place when the ball struck it, doesn't mean that the player should not have done all possible to avoid the ball striking the hands. Consider defender on defender on the line with his hand out on the post (think Larson in the the derby) Which then leads to the last assessment which is whether the player is protecting themselves or not. Good examples of protecting themself is the player in the wall at a free kick protecting their gentle mans area....ball strikes the hand (covering crotch) but this is not intential handling. Alternative would be the ball is struck at the players head, and they raise their arms to protect the face....the referee now has to decide if this was reflex action to protect, or could the player have avoided contact. The usually depends on the distance of the player from the ball when it was struck. Again back to referee opinion. As a referee my answer to this action is often that the player chose to block the ball to protect themselves rather than ducking to avoid contact. Thereby they intentionally handled the ball....of course that assumes that they had time to avoid the ball striking their hands. There really is no definitive black and white answer because their is no definitive way to assess a players intent. Therefore it is a subjective decision for the referee to make. And as the Laws of the Game state that all decisions are the opinion of the referee (and the LOTG doesn't mention the opinion of the coaches, managers or fans as being included in the decision process ;-D ) So after all that it comes down to one thing.......did the player intentionally, in the opinion of the referee, handle the ball

Biggest error today was Remy not the reffy

In our local youth soccer association here TX (approx 250 youth teams from u4 up) we have an annual coaches games....always some injuries due to pulls/sprains. We even dropped the field size demo from the full size U11 to the mid size U9 so that there would be less running. Always a fun night though

I can hear the hamstrings twanging from here with all those dads running around thinking they are 20 again

Doh!! Cautions

It's so that we don't have to have TV timeouts, and coaches timeouts for injuries and substitutions etc. Although if the clock were public and was stopped by the referee for subs/injuries/auctions then it would make the last few minutes very different. No more not knowing Fergie time....but also no more more fans whistling and hoping for the final whistle

Why would they extend/issue new contracts now? Wait till the season is over and you know what division you'll be playing in. It's not as if Bardsley is going to be poached by another club if they wait.

Moyes's face. Anyone else hear him say f***s sake on the mic Lip read Moyes saying Fuck Sake clear as day