General officiating/rules

[hippo]

11 hours ago, penguin said:

I've seen a few by some football sites but are nothing more than a cursory glance over the VAR given/decision-overturned stats, where things that aren't even referred to VAR or noticed by the ref e.g. the Maguire handball at the end against us aren't even recorded, of which sides are benefitting/being shafted by inconsistent and controversial officiating.

But there really needs to be a comprehensive review of this of all in game decisions and incidents by an independent party. I'm convinced it would show a staggering bias toward certain sides, and *dons tinfoil hat* I also wouldn't be surprised to see a correlation with certain betting markets. 

There was one done. Spurs and Liverpool benefited most from VAR reviews. Villa were amongst the bigger losers.

[rjw63]

9 hours ago, Talldarkandransome said:

It makes goal hanging legit again, its farcical and is putting me off the game.

If it wasn't for Villa, I wouldn't watch football

I haven't watched any non-Villa football for years, including the last two World Cups, and Euros.

I don't give a **** about other football teams.

[hippo]

10 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Sets precedent as well if they bend the rules to abdicate any fault from one of their refs. Moving forward any offside given for a similar situation is objectively wrong according to PGMOL.

It won't set a precedent though. Everytime time that happens from now the player will be given offside. I think there is a clip upthread from a game last night and almost identical incident  and the ref blows for offside.

The general principle is that you can't gain an advantage from being in an offside position. I suspect the rule they are hiding behind has been taken out of context.  Ive been watching football for 50 years - you don't see players tackling back from offside positions.

 

 

[fightoffyour]

11 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

This is bonkers. This is the official line. The official line even states that it was offside. It states that 'a player in an offside position receiving the ball'. Are they really trying to that Rodri simply 'received' the ball from Mings, and that he wasn't tackled by him.

Insanity.

That statement is insane. They've just taken half of a sentence and applied it as they see fit.

The law states:

Quote

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball...is not considered to have gained an advantage.

The PL refs statement, ignoring the part about "receiving the ball from an opponent", says:

Quote

"Mings deliberately played the ball" so "Rodri has not gained an advantage".

So they have modified the rule to:

Quote

A player in an offside position cannot be considered to have gained an advantage as soon as an opponent has deliberately played the ball

 

This has got me thinking. Are there any other sports that have rules that are "open to interpretation" or can be "applied as the referee sees fit"? Surely rules are supposed to be black and white. Isn't it a referee's/umpire's job to interpret what they see and apply the binary rule, not interpret what they see and then interpret how to apply a vague rule to it?

Edited January 21, 2021 by fightoffyour

[hippo]

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 first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used
• or
• gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
• rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar 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. 

 

The last bit reminds of the part in job description section "Any other duties appropriate to the position' 

The key part for me is that he didn't receive the ball from an opponent - he went and got it.

 

 

 

[tom_avfc]

I actually think that the reactions to these ludicrous decisions is more of an issue than the bad decision itself. Its a horrible decision but I can accept that people will make mistakes. The reaction initially from the PGMOL to come out with a rule that doesn't seem at all relevant to the incident (i.e. there is absolutely no way that Rodri tackling Mings is Rodri "receiving the ball") is mental and effectively doubles down on the bad decision. 

The next reaction I'd point out is the media who then parrot this line and say things to the effect that the law is wrong. The law is not wrong - this decision that has been made is not in the laws at all and that same incident has been correctly called offside for years. There's no analysis of the statement its just repeated as if its cleared everything up and we're the idiots for thinking that it was offside in the first place.

Then we have the reaction of Pep Guardiola who says "We have VAR so it must be right". This is evidently untrue given the decisions we've seen being made this season and if this goal was given at the other end (which I don't think it would have been anyway) then he would be absolutely livid about it. This partisanship from managers isn't helping us get any consistency or accuracy in decision making.

Finally there's the reaction of a lot of fans who are a mix of the above two. Some will just parrot the PGMOL statement as their proof that it is correct and some clearly have a vested interest.

All of these things make it more difficult for us to get these decisions right more often. I stand by the fact that everybody who has watched a game of football knows that that goal should not be allowed. Trying to justify with the incorrect implication of rules isn't helping anybody.

[GingerCollins29]

Takes the piss. We literally have to just sit back and take it, doesnt matter the insane level of inepitude or corruption, cant even complsin about it.

[Villaphan04]

6 hours ago, bobzy said:

They do that now to see what develops. I don’t necessarily have a problem with that to be honest. 

I agree with that but I thought that was supposed to only be in the case of decisions that are close. When the ball gets played back, he's probably like 20 yards offsides.

[gilbertoAVFC]

The major issue for me is the lack of transparency. For me, this inevitably will lead to accusations of corruption - not least because the world-wide betting turnover on any given Prem game is in excess of a billion a game. Refs get paid, what, three-figures a game? Go figure my concerns, especially when there are a dozen teams in the Prem sponsored by massive, Asian-based bookmakers with huuuuge stake limits - most of which are illegal in the country which they target and are vehicles to launder money!

In the NBA, in light of the Donaghy scandal (see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_NBA_betting_scandal), it was agreed that after every game with marginal calls in the final two minutes, there is an officiating report (https://official.nba.com/2019-20-nba-officiating-last-two-minute-reports/). When it's wrong, it is called as such, and the fans can see that.

Considering there are far, far more marginal calls in a game of basketball than in football, and the frequency of Premier League games is much lower (in the NBA, 32 teams play 82 games in the regular season), why can't the Prem do the same? Why don't they relegate the likes of Coote, Moss, Oliver, etc. when they have a sh*t game like back in the day?

The lack of scrutiny on the possibility of match-fixing in the Prem is mental. I wonder whether the perception that "it could never happen here" is based more on "because it hasn't" or, dare I say, the Prem is "above that" for some reason, more than any other reason. If there was corruption, it is so so easy to conceal, and so so difficult to prove. The Prem should therefore make much more an effort to be transparent, to ease these admittedly unfounded, but growing concerns.

Edited January 21, 2021 by gilbertoAVFC

[a m ole]

https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/mci-vs-av.16114/page-2

Quote

This type of offside has been discussed here a few times. It has been considered and given offside in the past.

 

The explanation given: UEFA and FIFA have though stated that situations like this are OFFSIDE OFFENCES as the ball is not played to the attacker, but the attacker comes from an offside position to challenge the defender (very shortly) after the defender has "taken hold of the ball" or "controlled the ball".

If the defender touches the ball first (not to the attacker), for me its a matter of judgment on how far the attacker has to be and how fast after the first touch he becomes active for it to be offside. My rule of thumb is if the defender is challenged for the second touch, or before the second touch, or ball is played by attacker before the second touch then I call offside. That is given the defender had the opportunity to play a decent fist touch and it was played away from the attacker. That makes the OP and offside for me.

UEFA and FIFA have previously clarified that such a situation is offside. precedence.

[Rightdm00]

Cant wait for the next prem game. This type of offside is given multiple times a game. This isn't some rare occurrence. The ref just blew it and the next time it happens, which will be soon, they will rule it offside and pretend the Mings call never happened. 

Otherwise if they were to persist with this interpretation they have literally created a new game different and distinct from the game that we have all been watching/playing for decades. Call it whatever you like but don't call it football. 

[El Zen]

It really baffles me that pundits with decades worth of experience in professional football just accept PGMOL’s «clarification» without as much as a «hold on, we’ve seen these called offside literally hundreds of times without giving it a moment’s thought» or a «wait, he doesn’t actually receive the ball from Mings as much as take it off him». They all just «oh, I didn’t know the rules». We all knew the sodding rules, and there is nothing wrong with the rules, they’ve just been comically reinvented by Jon Moss who has now potentially become something of a revolutionary figure as he’s single handedly changing the game of football on the fly. Impressive stuff. 

[tinker]

Problem is these poor decisions are made week iin week out and always against the 'smaller' teams. We  All laugh at them until it's our turn when they all laugh at us.

Until opposition fans can stop gloating at each other injustices and call it out on social media together as one then the top 6's larger armchair fan bases will drown us all out. 

 

[a m ole]

reading more from refchat, there is contrasting views in there but another post...

Quote

I think by the letter of the law it’s offside.

But, previous guidance from UEFA et al has been along the lines of - if the challenge comes quickly it should be an offence.

We are discussing this in our local forum where I’ve got three Fifa-badged ARs saying it’s not crystal clear but their understanding is they think it should an offence.

 

[El Zen]

Copied from the R&R thread, as it’s a general comment/question:

One potential issue with admitting Jon Moss screwed up, is that would be admitting the ref had applied the rules of football wrongly. To make a mistake, missing a call through not seeing it, is fair enough. But for the ref to actually use the rules wrongly (no chance he didn’t see Rodri came from an offside position), that opens you up for an official protest and rematch doesn’t it? 

[kidlewis]

Can we get someone who is a journalist to ask the tough question ?

People are missing the point. Mings chests the ball, a new phase is correct but Rodri is STILL in an offside position when Mings chests the ball. 

He then comes back to an onside position to tackle Mings.

The law states that is offside through gaining an advantage. 

That law is there for pass backs and opposition players “receiving a ball” from an opponent.

And despite this new phase law, it DOESNT MATTER because Rodri is still offside.

 

am I missing something?

 

it’s not like he was offside, runs back onside as Mings chests it and tackles him. That’s allowed. 
 

this goal still isn’t legitimate at all. 

[WooJung]

27 minutes ago, kidlewis said:

Can we get someone who is a journalist to ask the tough question ?

People are missing the point. Mings chests the ball, a new phase is correct but Rodri is STILL in an offside position when Mings chests the ball. 

He then comes back to an onside position to tackle Mings.

The law states that is offside through gaining an advantage. 

That law is there for pass backs and opposition players “receiving a ball” from an opponent.

And despite this new phase law, it DOESNT MATTER because Rodri is still offside.

 

am I missing something?

 

it’s not like he was offside, runs back onside as Mings chests it and tackles him. That’s allowed. 
 

this goal still isn’t legitimate at all. 

It is irrelevant weather he was inside or offside when mings chests the ball. It matters that he was offside when the pass was made, and his offside position did influence mings's options. Had he not been there mings would have had more time on the ball. He gains the advantage from being offside precisely because mings was limited in his options when receiving the ball.

[StefanAVFC]

I'm still **** annoyed at this. Again, more annoyed at people supporting it.

How anyone can read the Offside rule and say that Rodri received the ball from Mings, rather than tackled him is stupid or disingenuous. By definition, to receive indicates passivity. You cannot actively receive something. Rodri actively gets the ball.

And ex refs coming out one by one to say it was a correct interpretation of the law. Words continue to fail me. 

[ChrisVillan]

6 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I'm still **** annoyed at this. Again, more annoyed at people supporting it.

How anyone can read the Offside rule and say that Rodri received the ball from Mings, rather than tackled him is stupid or disingenuous. By definition, to receive indicates passivity. You cannot actively receive something. Rodri actively gets the ball.

And ex refs coming out one by one to say it was a correct interpretation of the law. Words continue to fail me. 

It'll happen again this weekend, go the other way like it has the previous billion times it's happened, and nobody will say a word. 100%.

[PussEKatt]

Are the PL trying to drive fans away? first VAR and now this.Football will not be worth watching at all soon,if this trend carries on.