Dogawful Officiating

[snabelkabel]

I can’t remember what game it was, but i can see the play clearly in my head still. Where there was a theoughball to a player in offside position and one of our defenders made like a slide/tackle to try and stop the pass, got a toe to it, but it still ended up at the opposition player in a offside position, whom scored. I was shocked by the decition to let the goal stand then, and was told he made a deliberate atempt at the ball.

[80]

2 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

Why though?

 

The purpose of the rule is to prevent goals like the (apparently legal) Salah one. Where a deflection or 'unfair clearance' goes through to an attacker in an advantageous position. It's not meant to bail out sloppy defending. Felipe had more than enough of an opportunity to clear the ball properly, the fact he played it towards a teammate under pressure is his own fault.

I think a lot of these issues stem from muddying the waters around who is and isn't offside. The firmer rule of 'any player beyond is influencing and therefore off' is much clearer and easier to understand.

 

Once you introduce interpretation around 'well he was standing still in the penalty area with his hands in his pockets so the defenders should have ignored him' you get problems.

[80]

6 minutes ago, magvicar said:

What appears to have happened is, VAR has came in and the rules of the game have altered to bring in some kind of complicated addition to the set up of the basic rules, turning what was once a simple game into almost a scientific mish mash.

 

Basic common sense and logic can cut out a lot of this garbage decision making we currently see but seeing that come to fruition is likely never going to happen because to be fair would mean being fair and that could impact the elite clubs in a dramatic way and I highly doubt they would be having that.

Yes, agreed with most of that. A combination of altering rules to make them more convenient for VAR to officiate, and also changing rules because the technology enables them to make the game even more sterile.

 

Not so sure about the fairness part though. The argument will be made that the fair result is for the better teams to win. That those who invest the most money should expect to receive the highest return on investment, and that luck and arbitrary measurements like goals pose a threat to that fairness.

[Hanshithispantz]

18 minutes ago, 80 said:

I think a lot of these issues stem from muddying the waters around who is and isn't offside. The firmer rule of 'any player beyond is influencing and therefore off' is much clearer and easier to understand.

 

Once you introduce interpretation around 'well he was standing still in the penalty area with his hands in his pockets so the defenders should have ignored him' you get problems.

I don't think it works here though as Felipe plays the ball 90 degrees towards Longstaff who's 10 yards away. I think the whole "is he interfering or not" thing only works when it's the same phase of play. Basically Longstaff would have to have been close to Felipe.

[Hanshithispantz]

Rashford against Man City was an example of the murkiness around the law.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I think the only possible thing is that they decided Felipe’s intervention was instinctive and he didn’t have time to react, which means he didn’t play Longstaff back onside. 

 

FWIW I didn’t know that line was in the rules and I’m not convinced the officials know either. And they don’t explain, so who knows. 

[80]

3 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

I don't think it works here though as Felipe plays the ball 90 degrees towards Longstaff who's 10 yards away. I think the whole "is he interfering or not" thing only works when it's the same phase of play. Basically Longstaff would have to have been close to Felipe.

Agreed, but we're still talking in terms of phases of play. I'm saying that an alternative way of using the offside rule is to say 'Isak kicked the ball forwards when Longstaff was beyond the last defender. Offside'. And there wouldn't be room for any argument about interpretations on that, the flag would've been up before the defender touched the ball.

[Stifler]

So let’s say Felipe went to clear it, but it went wrong and in the back of his own net, what a cop out to rule the goal out. Surely at that point most own goals would not be allowed?

[Hanshithispantz]

3 minutes ago, 80 said:

Agreed, but we're still talking in terms of phases of play. I'm saying that an alternative way of using the offside rule is to say 'Isak kicked the ball forwards when Longstaff was beyond the last defender. Offside'. And there wouldn't be room for any argument about interpretations on that, the flag would've been up before the defender touched the ball.

It would still be subjective though as they would have to determine when to apply the rule, otherwise you would have Burn passing to Maxi on the left wing being pulled back because Lodi steps forward playing Murphy off on the right.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

10 minutes ago, Stifler said:

So let’s say Felipe went to clear it, but it went wrong and in the back of his own net, what a cop out to rule the goal out. Surely at that point most own goals would not be allowed?

If you believe he deliberately tried to clear it then it’s not offside anyway. By the law.

[80]

15 minutes ago, Hanshithispantz said:

It would still be subjective though as they would have to determine when to apply the rule, otherwise you would have Burn passing to Maxi on the left wing being pulled back because Lodi steps forward playing Murphy off on the right.

Yeah, definitely, it would imply players across the pitch having to be watchful of a traditional offside trap. That's part of why the newer interpretations were brought in, to make things more fluid.

 

It's a judgement call, but personally I prefer not having this much confusion about exactly what the rules are, though. Particularly when VAR is factored in. And I think things like Longstaff would happen less by definition because last night he would've not let himself stray beyond and unknowingly cause the unrelated Anderson goal to be ruled out. The clear rules themselves would change player behaviours.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by 80

[Nobody]

5 hours ago, Kaizero said:

 

The PL is in another league entirely when it comes to VAR being used horribly, tbf. To my knowledge (happy to be proven wrong by any natives of those countries) the English are the only ones really complaining as well. The Norwegian league is introducing VAR this season, everybody is happy as fuck with it and can't wait for it to come into action. Fans have been demanding it being used for years now.

That just proves what us Swedes have said for ages; that you're all idiots over there

Literally no fan I've ever talked to in Sweden wants it introduced over here. 

[NUFC]

Ok so i was adamant this was not offside last night and as a qualified ref myself was very confused. 

 

From reading various referee forums since

 

Law 11 - Offside

 

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

or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

In situations where:

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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12

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

an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.

 

IFAB Further Guidance - Offside Deliberate Play (Issued 22 July 2022)

 

 

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

 

passing the ball to a team-mate; or

gaining possession of the ball; or

clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

 

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

 

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

 

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control

A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

 

 

 

 

So based on the above I am told it was correct decision (although very confusing) 

 

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it - was quite a short distance between defender and Longstaff
• The ball was not moving quickly - the ball was crossed quickly into the box
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected - no as the ball was played by Isak and was expected to go into the box
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control - the ball was coming quickly into the box and the player whilst running instinctively stretched to intercept the ball & won't have had time to coordinate their body movement

[gbandit]

If it’s not a goal the rules need changing. What the fuck is the point of competitive sport if people who know fuck all about the game are the ones deciding how it runs. Continually we see decisions from referees and VAR that defy belief to almost all football fans. Of course there are really grey areas but I’m sure almost all football fans would see the goal Anderson scored yesterday as legit for their own team and if they were watching a neutral game they’d be scratching their heads at the decision. The amount of impact refs are having on games has only increased since the introduction of VAR. It’s absurd

[joeyt]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

So let’s say Felipe went to clear it, but it went wrong and in the back of his own net, what a cop out to rule the goal out. Surely at that point most own goals would not be allowed?

 

Eh? What are you on about?

 

If the ball went in off Felipe it would have been a goal because Longstaff was nowhere near it

[ohmelads]

31 minutes ago, NUFC said:

Ok so i was adamant this was not offside last night and as a qualified ref myself was very confused. 

 

From reading various referee forums since

 

Law 11 - Offside

 

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

or

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

been deliberately saved by any opponent

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

In situations where:

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; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12

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

an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

*The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used.

 

IFAB Further Guidance - Offside Deliberate Play (Issued 22 July 2022)

 

 

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

 

passing the ball to a team-mate; or

gaining possession of the ball; or

clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

 

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

 

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

 

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
• The ball was not moving quickly
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control

A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

 

 

 

 

So based on the above I am told it was correct decision (although very confusing) 

 

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it - was quite a short distance between defender and Longstaff
• The ball was not moving quickly - the ball was crossed quickly into the box
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected - no as the ball was played by Isak and was expected to go into the box
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control - the ball was coming quickly into the box and the player whilst running instinctively stretched to intercept the ball & won't have had time to coordinate their body movement

 

You are aware that a second player also deliberately cleared the ball? Seems you are focusing on the first sloppy clearance and not the second one which is beyond dispute.

 

I don't think any amount of mental gymnastics can get VAR out of this one.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The ‘instinctive’ aspect was what I was saying earlier. That’s the only justification I can see. 
 

The second defender near Longstaff doesn’t matter, Felipe’s action is the one that could have played him back onside. 

[ohmelads]

1 hour ago, 80 said:

Yeah, definitely, it would imply players across the pitch having to be watchful of a traditional offside trap. That's part of why the newer interpretations were brought in, to make things more fluid.

 

It's a judgement call, but personally I prefer not having this much confusion about exactly what the rules are, though. Particularly when VAR is factored in. And I think things like Longstaff would happen less by definition because last night he would've not let himself stray beyond and unknowingly cause the unrelated Anderson goal to be ruled out. The clear rules themselves would change player behaviours.

 

 

 

 

Agree about simplifying rules, but then 'clear and obvious' was designed to be as simple as possible to understand, with the acceptance that there will always be borderline cases but that common sense prevails and fluid gameplay trumps guesswork. Yet we have situations where VAR are taking minutes and guessing with imprecise technology, and still deciding to rule out goals based on that guesswork, so I'm not sure complexity of rules is the issue here. At worst I think there may be a problem with integrity of some officials, and at best there is an issue with consistency, guesswork and not following their own rules and guidelines.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Clear and obvious error doesn’t solve anything, it just introduces another level of subjectivity. Makes it worse if anything, or at least harder to understand. 

[madras]

52 minutes ago, NUFC said:

 

 

• The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it - was quite a short distance between defender and Longstaff
• The ball was not moving quickly - the ball was crossed quickly into the box
• The direction of the ball was not unexpected - no as the ball was played by Isak and was expected to go into the box
• The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control - the ball was coming quickly into the box and the player whilst running instinctively stretched to intercept the ball & won't have had time to coordinate their body movement

1. I'd have thought it would have been from the attacker playing the ball (Isak) and the defender playing it (Felipe). If so, as Neville pointed out, he had plenty of time, it wasn't driven at him and he had time to try and play it not just block it. If it's Niakhate then the ball has already been deliberately played by Felipe.

 

2. Again I don't think it was and neither did the pundits or most neutral fans.

3. N/A

 

4. Again no one seems to see Felipes or Niakhates movement as being instinctive but pretty obvious deliberate playing of the ball except you, the ref,the VAR ref and some but not all Forest fans.

[ohmelads]

Just now, AyeDubbleYoo said:

The ‘instinctive’ aspect was what I was saying earlier. That’s the only justification I can see. 
 

The second defender near Longstaff doesn’t matter, Felipe’s action is the one that could have played him back onside. 

 

If you let the first defender off, the focus then goes on to the second defender who also deliberately played the ball, so he certainly matters. The ball travels 10 yards to him at a slow speed. He should do far better.

[madras]

28 minutes ago, joeyt said:

 

Eh? What are you on about?

 

If the ball went in off Felipe it would have been a goal because Longstaff was nowhere near it

He was also nowhere near Felipes original touch from which he seems to be being ruled offside.

[joeyt]

1 minute ago, madras said:

He was also nowhere near Felipes original touch from which he seems to be being ruled offside.

 

But the touch from Felipe went towards Longstaff. Stifler is suggesting if the ball went straight into the net from Felipe it would have been siallowed because Longstaff was offside, which it obviously wouldn't have

 

It was the wrong decision but let's not make stuff up either

[Unbelievable]

2 hours ago, Stifler said:

So let’s say Felipe went to clear it, but it went wrong and in the back of his own net, what a cop out to rule the goal out. Surely at that point most own goals would not be allowed?

Interesting question. Probably in that case they would have ruled Longstaff didn’t interfere with play. Just goes to show how fucked up these rules nowadays are

[Unbelievable]

31 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Clear and obvious error doesn’t solve anything, it just introduces another level of subjectivity. Makes it worse if anything, or at least harder to understand. 

Clear and obvious is quite a useful principle though. E.g. if only one out of five angles supports the potential error theory, it certainly wasn’t clear and obvious. It was introduced to correct obvious things the referee may have missed, not for this level of nitpicking and finding an angle to suit the preferred outcome.

 

just how did we get here, really. As gbandit suggests, no ordinary football fan would look at that passage of play yesterday and suggest it was a clear and obvious case of offside that the referee and linesman somehow missed.