Jump to content

General officiating/rules


StefanAVFC

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, OutByEaster? said:

Kane is offside and he dived.

As long as the decision they made was to book Kane, then I think they made the right decision - if not, then a flag would have been right.

I think if a defender deliberately plays a ball - you know, makes a pass, then it's different than trying to make a block - they could simplify the rule by just making offside offside, and getting rid of all this interfering nonsense - if you're on the pitch, you're interfering with play.

 

Agree with this. A simple test for whether the player has "played the ball" or not should be, if it rolled from there to a keeper inside the box, would he be allowed to pick it up? In all 3 cases we're discussing here, absolutely yes, so how can a player be considered to have deliberately played the ball?

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2021 at 01:05, bannedfromHandV said:

France’s winner in the nations league - its offside, pure and simple, farcical just as our game against city last season.

Yeah this is madness. I actually think it's ten times worse than our one against City. At least Mings was actually controlling that ball so there's half an argument that you're in a new phase of play.

This one was a slight touch from an attempted interception. It's absolute nonsense and that rule needs changing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow I’ve only just seen this. Absolutely insane decision. I’d say there’s not much wrong with that part of the rule, but if it is ambiguous enough for moronic officials to make such moronic decisions as was made against us vs city, then any ambiguity has to be completely removed.

The only reason for the “deliberate play” to be in there is if a player controls the ball, passes back it to the goalkeeper or another defender and doesn’t see an attacker who intercepts, so why not write explicitly “an attacking player in an offside position is still given as offside even if the pass to them is błocked, intercepted, deflected, controlled, or an unsuccessful attempt at any of the above is made by an opposition player”

Job done. The law as everyone understands it written in some kind of lawyer talk by someone who is half cut lying in bed in 60 seconds.

 

And here’s this guy again, still doesn’t know the rules.

 

Edited by fightoffyour
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Wow I’ve only just seen this. Absolutely insane decision. I’d say there’s not much wrong with that part of the rule, but if it is ambiguous enough for moronic officials to make such moronic decisions as was made against us vs city, then any ambiguity has to be completely removed.

The only reason for the “deliberate play” to be in there is if a player controls the ball, passes back it to the goalkeeper or another defender and doesn’t see an attacker who intercepts, so why not write explicitly “an attacking player in an offside position is still given as offside even if the pass to them is błocked, intercepted, deflected, controlled, or an unsuccessful attempt at any of the above is made by an opposition player”

Job done. The law as everyone understands it written in some kind of lawyer talk by someone who is half cut lying in bed in 60 seconds.

 

And here’s this guy again, still doesn’t know the rules.

 

Whilst I agree with your post in a lot of ways I don't think the issue is with the rules but more the people interpreting them.

That goal is offside. It has always been offside and it has always been given as offside. No matter how many attempts are made to make the rules watertight there will need to be an element of common sense applied when refereeing the game. Any referee who agrees that the rule should be applied how it has for that goal shouldn't be refereeing football games.

Its the same as the City goal against us in that if a referee wants to look for hidden meaning within the rules to the game then they can probably justify almost any decision they make. In reality if they just came out and admitted that it was a mistake then we could move on and everybody would know going forwards that this should always be given offside.

If we were to go forward with the rule being applied how it was here then football becomes a completely different game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, tom_avfc said:

Whilst I agree with your post in a lot of ways I don't think the issue is with the rules but more the people interpreting them.

That goal is offside. It has always been offside and it has always been given as offside. No matter how many attempts are made to make the rules watertight there will need to be an element of common sense applied when refereeing the game. Any referee who agrees that the rule should be applied how it has for that goal shouldn't be refereeing football games.

Its the same as the City goal against us in that if a referee wants to look for hidden meaning within the rules to the game then they can probably justify almost any decision they make. In reality if they just came out and admitted that it was a mistake then we could move on and everybody would know going forwards that this should always be given offside.

If we were to go forward with the rule being applied how it was here then football becomes a completely different game.

I think we’re in complete agreement except I’ve talked about ambiguity where you’ve used the word interpretation. It’s that slight ambiguity that leaves the door open for interpretation, even if everyone has been in complete agreement about what the correct interpretation is for the for the history of the rule up until now.

Let’s just look at the rules from the FA once again:

Quote

• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage

It’s this “deliberate play” that is open to interpretation. Is a failed interception a deliberate play? No of course it isn’t, we all know it isn’t, and yet we’ve got decisions being given in the finals of “major” tournaments, referees on TV defending them, and more on refereeing forums agreeing.

A deliberate play means the ball going more or less where the player intended it to, i.e. a back pass to the keeper that is intercepted by an attacker he didn’t know was there coming from offside. So unless in the above case the Spanish defender intended for the ball to graze of his leg into Mbappe’s path, then it clearly wasn’t a deliberate play.

I can easily write a mock-up point iii as above to settle this once and for all, to simply clarify the rule as well all know it should be applied:

Quote

iii. that rebounds or is deflected to him from a failed attempt by an opponent to control or play the ball having been in an offside position

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, fightoffyour said:

I think we’re in complete agreement except I’ve talked about ambiguity where you’ve used the word interpretation. It’s that slight ambiguity that leaves the door open for interpretation, even if everyone has been in complete agreement about what the correct interpretation is for the for the history of the rule up until now.

Let’s just look at the rules from the FA once again:

It’s this “deliberate play” that is open to interpretation. Is a failed interception a deliberate play? No of course it isn’t, we all know it isn’t, and yet we’ve got decisions being given in the finals of “major” tournaments, referees on TV defending them, and more on refereeing forums agreeing.

A deliberate play means the ball going more or less where the player intended it to, i.e. a back pass to the keeper that is intercepted by an attacker he didn’t know was there coming from offside. So unless in the above case the Spanish defender intended for the ball to graze of his leg into Mbappe’s path, then it clearly wasn’t a deliberate play.

I can easily write a mock-up point iii as above to settle this once and for all, to simply clarify the rule as well all know it should be applied:

 

Yeah I completely agree I just feel that it shouldn't be necessary to have to do this and I feel like it'd lead to having to do the same thing in numerous other places in the rules. 

If referees weren't so quick to look into the rules for justification of bizarre decisions then it wouldn't even be an issue. If a referee can't apply the most basic common sense to their decisions then we'd be constantly updating the rules until every possible scenario that might happen in a game is specifically included in the rules.

I guess my main point is that if it hasn't been an issue previously for however many years without said clarification then surely the people interpreting the rules are the issue rather than the rules themselves.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, fightoffyour said:

I think we’re in complete agreement except I’ve talked about ambiguity where you’ve used the word interpretation. It’s that slight ambiguity that leaves the door open for interpretation, even if everyone has been in complete agreement about what the correct interpretation is for the for the history of the rule up until now.

Let’s just look at the rules from the FA once again:

It’s this “deliberate play” that is open to interpretation. Is a failed interception a deliberate play? No of course it isn’t, we all know it isn’t, and yet we’ve got decisions being given in the finals of “major” tournaments, referees on TV defending them, and more on refereeing forums agreeing.

A deliberate play means the ball going more or less where the player intended it to, i.e. a back pass to the keeper that is intercepted by an attacker he didn’t know was there coming from offside. So unless in the above case the Spanish defender intended for the ball to graze of his leg into Mbappe’s path, then it clearly wasn’t a deliberate play.

I can easily write a mock-up point iii as above to settle this once and for all, to simply clarify the rule as well all know it should be applied:

 

The bit in bold, yes, of course it's a deliberate play.  The player would be deliberately trying to intercept the ball from getting to the attacker.  It's definitely a deliberate play.  You can't definite deliberate play as "meaning the ball goes more or less where the player intended" - that's ridiculous.  If a player skews a backpass horribly and it goes 20 yards to the left into an attackers' path, that can't be called back as it wasn't "deliberate".

The problem is that this phrase exists in the laws of the game at all.  It needs to be removed.  Either remove it and replace with "deliberate pass" or, somehow, have the ruling as "a player is offside if they are stood in an offside position and this has an impact on the phase of play" (no idea how this would be written properly :D).  If a player is offside on the far side of the pitch and the ball is played through the middle to someone else, not offside.  If a player is offside in the middle of the pitch and the ball is played to someone else in the middle of the pitch, offside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, bobzy said:

The bit in bold, yes, of course it's a deliberate play.  The player would be deliberately trying to intercept the ball from getting to the attacker.  It's definitely a deliberate play.  You can't definite deliberate play as "meaning the ball goes more or less where the player intended" - that's ridiculous.  If a player skews a backpass horribly and it goes 20 yards to the left into an attackers' path, that can't be called back as it wasn't "deliberate".

OK you're right about that ball going where intended part. My draft point iii was closer to what I believe the rule as it stands should be, which covers the Mbappe one being offside while your example of a skewed backpass being onside.

24 minutes ago, bobzy said:

The problem is that this phrase exists in the laws of the game at all.  It needs to be removed.  Either remove it and replace with "deliberate pass" or, somehow, have the ruling as "a player is offside if they are stood in an offside position and this has an impact on the phase of play" (no idea how this would be written properly :D).  If a player is offside on the far side of the pitch and the ball is played through the middle to someone else, not offside.  If a player is offside in the middle of the pitch and the ball is played to someone else in the middle of the pitch, offside.

Or you're just not allowed to stand offside whatever, no ambiguity. Being anywhere on the pitch - hell, even being off the sides of it - is inherently affecting play to at least some degree by grabbing the attention of the opposition players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty simple solution as I see it. If you're in an offside position as a forward pass is made by a teammate, you have to get back in an onside position behind a defender prior to getting involved in the play in any way whatsoever, and getting involved in the play can be as simple as moving in the direction of the ball, zero tolerance.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only just seen the Mbappe «goal». It’s f***ing scandalous. Refs need to know the game better than that. If not, they have no business refereeing professional football. 

(I’m looking at you, Jon Moss.) 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another goal clearly influenced by an offside player but stands due to it being a ‘second phase’.

Total BS, they need to sort this out, forget about phases, if a player is in an offside position and then immediately influences play then it should be offside, simple as.

Not that it matters in the context of this game as Watford are woeful anyway but still.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2021 at 10:44, fightoffyour said:

I think we’re in complete agreement except I’ve talked about ambiguity where you’ve used the word interpretation. It’s that slight ambiguity that leaves the door open for interpretation, even if everyone has been in complete agreement about what the correct interpretation is for the for the history of the rule up until now.

Let’s just look at the rules from the FA once again:

It’s this “deliberate play” that is open to interpretation. Is a failed interception a deliberate play? No of course it isn’t, we all know it isn’t, and yet we’ve got decisions being given in the finals of “major” tournaments, referees on TV defending them, and more on refereeing forums agreeing.

A deliberate play means the ball going more or less where the player intended it to, i.e. a back pass to the keeper that is intercepted by an attacker he didn’t know was there coming from offside. So unless in the above case the Spanish defender intended for the ball to graze of his leg into Mbappe’s path, then it clearly wasn’t a deliberate play.

I can easily write a mock-up point iii as above to settle this once and for all, to simply clarify the rule as well all know it should be applied:

 

For me again, as it was for Mings/City, it's not the word deliberately, it's the word 'receiving'. Did Rodri 'receive' the ball from Mings? No, he tackled him. Does Mbappe 'receive' the ball from Garcia. Again, no way, he's sliding and he brushes it. Both 'deliberate' and 'receiving' need to be changed. The rule you wrote in your first post would do the trick.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on this insane rule (which only British refs seem to have an issue with BTW), strikers should just stand next to the keeper for the whole game, and everyone should hit long balls at them, and the forward should just stand a metre or so away from whichever defender (or even the GK) is dealing with it. Wait for them to touch it, then challenge them as he's now not offside.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

For me again, as it was for Mings/City, it's not the word deliberately, it's the word 'receiving'. Did Rodri 'receive' the ball from Mings? No, he tackled him. Does Mbappe 'receive' the ball from Garcia. Again, no way, he's sliding and he brushes it. Both 'deliberate' and 'receiving' need to be changed. The rule you wrote in your first post would do the trick.

I got so into the "deliberate" part this time that I even forgot we'd already had a whole discussion about "receiving" months ago, which together makes all of these recent incidents even more ridiculous.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Based on this insane rule (which only British refs seem to have an issue with BTW), strikers should just stand next to the keeper for the whole game, and everyone should hit long balls at them, and the forward should just stand a metre or so away from whichever defender (or even the GK) is dealing with it. Wait for them to touch it, then challenge them as he's now not offside.

Tony Pulis wet dream 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Based on this insane rule (which only British refs seem to have an issue with BTW), strikers should just stand next to the keeper for the whole game, and everyone should hit long balls at them, and the forward should just stand a metre or so away from whichever defender (or even the GK) is dealing with it. Wait for them to touch it, then challenge them as he's now not offside.

said after the man city game we might as well just make it like punters, smash it high and long and then just just put the defender under pressure and be on his shit touch

a 60 yard ball gets played forward to an attacker stood offside, the defender instinctively challenges for the ball and nods it out for a throw or a corner...he did it because of the offside player...so its offside...the rules seems to be that a defender shouldnt instinctively try and play the ball they should instinctively try and play the offside, that makes no **** sense! that's rule written by someone who doesn't play football

if in doubt don't go for the ball go for the offside, how are you meant to coach that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rule change really shouldn’t be necessary. All you need is a basic understanding of the game of football and the intention of the offside rule to remove any ambiguity about how the rule should be enforced in situations like the Mbappe «goal». It’s almost upsetting, certainly frustrating, that we even have to discuss this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, El Zen said:

A rule change really shouldn’t be necessary. All you need is a basic understanding of the game of football and the intention of the offside rule to remove any ambiguity about how the rule should be enforced in situations like the Mbappe «goal». It’s almost upsetting, certainly frustrating, that we even have to discuss this. 

I think he’s just accidentally let slip that all the refs are robots that can only follow specifically worded rules like the ones in ‘I, Robot’.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the penalty and follow up. Is the clock reset to when the situation was that resulted in the penalty or why was Auba allowed to score from the follow up after the half had ended?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â