General officiating/rules

[fightoffyour]

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:

 

Here we are again.

So reading the rules, Salah is not considered to have gained an advantage from being in an offside position as a result of receiving the ball from the defender following him deliberately playing the ball (failed clearance).

 

[villa4europe]

3 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Here we are again.

So reading the rules, Salah is not considered to have gained an advantage from being in an offside position as a result of receiving the ball from the defender following him deliberately playing the ball (failed clearance).

 The argument is if salahs not there does the defender even try and play the ball or does he let it run through to the keeper

I'm the latter, the attempted clearance is due to salahs run

So he's offside

[KentVillan]

15 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

 The argument is if salahs not there does the defender even try and play the ball or does he let it run through to the keeper

I'm the latter, the attempted clearance is due to salahs run

So he's offside

I agree, and I thought they had clarified this after the Mings v City situation last season, that this was actually an offside. Baffled.

[El Segundo]

Allowing the Salah goal is a complete misapplication of the "defender deliberately played it" rule.  As others have said that's not intended for when a defender only tries to play the ball because of the presence of the offside player.   As soon as the ball is played in Salah should be called offside, and whatever happens after should be irrelevant.  He's clearly gained an advantage from being offside.  Mike Dean probably knows this but hey, it's Liverpool, so it doesn't apply.  

[KentVillan]

31 minutes ago, El Segundo said:

Allowing the Salah goal is a complete misapplication of the "defender deliberately played it" rule.  As others have said that's not intended for when a defender only tries to play the ball because of the presence of the offside player.   As soon as the ball is played in Salah should be called offside, and whatever happens after should be irrelevant.  He's clearly gained an advantage from being offside.  Mike Dean probably knows this but hey, it's Liverpool, so it doesn't apply.  

It’s one of those rare ones where I’ve seen plenty of Liverpool fans say they thought it was offside.

There’s a good expression referees use when discussing the laws called “football expects”. The idea being that a rule should be up for debate if fans on both sides expect one thing, and the outcome is different.

So whatever the rules / guidance say… personally I think they do say this should be offside already, but even if they don’t… it’s clear that football expects this to be offside, and they should be making sure goals like this aren’t awarded when they next review the guidance.

[foreveryoung]

All pointed to authorities wanting LIverpool to stay in the competition for me. It's obvious the big boys bring more money into the FA Cup. Imagine 2 lower league teams getting though, would never happen for this reason.

[fightoffyour]

1 minute ago, foreveryoung said:

All pointed to authorities wanting LIverpool to stay in the competition for me. It's obvious the big boys bring more money into the FA Cup. Imagine 2 lower league teams getting though, would never happen for this reason.

The rules being correctly applied is a conspiracy?

The rules are wrong but that's another issue.

Edited January 8, 2023 by fightoffyour

[bobzy]

13 minutes ago, foreveryoung said:

All pointed to authorities wanting LIverpool to stay in the competition for me. It's obvious the big boys bring more money into the FA Cup. Imagine 2 lower league teams getting though, would never happen for this reason.

Authorities conspiring by giving the right decision 

[Lichfield Dean]

Somebody remind again what the rules are regarding penalties and red cards? I thought you wouldn't get a red card for a genuine attempt at getting the ball.

Against Stevenage, I can just about at a stretch accept that Dendoncker was red carded for the shirt pull, but then that was outside the penalty area and should never have been a penalty. If the penalty was given for the subsequent challenge (i.e. the ref chose to ignore one foul in order to give another) then that seemed a perfectly legitimate attempt to get the ball, so why a red card as well as a penalty?

I'm a bit confused about the choices made by the ref and VAR in that incident.

The rule is below. I swear the ref and VAR got this totally wrong. It should have been a penalty OR a red card and free kick outside the box:

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

 

[sharkyvilla]

2 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Somebody remind again what the rules are regarding penalties and red cards? I thought you wouldn't get a red card for a genuine attempt at getting the ball.

Against Stevenage, I can just about at a stretch accept that Dendoncker was red carded for the shirt pull, but then that was outside the penalty area and should never have been a penalty. If the penalty was given for the subsequent challenge (i.e. the ref chose to ignore one foul in order to give another) then that seemed a perfectly legitimate attempt to get the ball, so why a red card as well as a penalty?

I'm a bit confused about the choices made by the ref and VAR in that incident.

The rule is below. I swear the ref and VAR got this totally wrong. It should have been a penalty OR a red card and free kick outside the box:

DENYING A GOAL OR AN OBVIOUS GOAL-SCORING OPPORTUNITY (DOGSO)

Where a player commits an offence against an opponent within their own penalty area which denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity and the referee awards a penalty kick, the offender is cautioned if the offence was an attempt to play the ball; in all other circumstances (e.g. holding, pulling,
pushing, no possibility to play the ball etc.) the offending player must be sent off.

 

I wondered the same thing.  The only thing I can think of is that they decided the shirt pull carried on into the box before Dendoncker let go therefore was a penalty and not a genuine attempt to get the ball?  If they gave it for the tackle then he shouldn't have been sent off.

[KentVillan]

2 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I wondered the same thing.  The only thing I can think of is that they decided the shirt pull carried on into the box before Dendoncker let go therefore was a penalty and not a genuine attempt to get the ball?  If they gave it for the tackle then he shouldn't have been sent off.

The shirt pull is definitely outside the box.

I think what they've done is play advantage on the shirt pull, give him a red card for that, and then penalty for the challenge in the box.

OR they've decided the challenge in the box was a deliberate foul and not a genuine attempt to play the ball.

Convoluted, and it would be nice if they would just give a proper explanation as it happens, so all the fans can understand the thought process.

[ThunderPower_14]

14 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Here we are again.

So reading the rules, Salah is not considered to have gained an advantage from being in an offside position as a result of receiving the ball from the defender following him deliberately playing the ball (failed clearance).

 

That's an interpretation though. It's one way of reading the rules.

Another interpretation is employing this clause which says a player in an offside position has committed the offside offence when they are:

"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"

Salah has undoubtedly done this by trying to run onto the pass, which made the defender throw his head at the ball. The flag should already be up at that point because the elements of the offence have been fulfilled. 

Which means he's already committed the offside offence before he receives the ball, and his receiving the ball shortly after is incidental. He's made the player play at the ball and been offside before he's touched it, not much different to a player who is offside because they're standing in the way of the goalkeeper. You don't have to touch the ball to commit the offside offence and Salah had already committed the offence before the ball fell to him. 

But again, this is just another interpretation that referees can use when it suits them. The rules are likely intentionally vague.

[Davkaus]

14 hours ago, Lichfield Dean said:

Somebody remind again what the rules are regarding penalties and red cards? I thought you wouldn't get a red card for a genuine attempt at getting the ball.

Against Stevenage, I can just about at a stretch accept that Dendoncker was red carded for the shirt pull, but then that was outside the penalty area and should never have been a penalty.

 

 

12 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I wondered the same thing.  The only thing I can think of is that they decided the shirt pull carried on into the box before Dendoncker let go therefore was a penalty and not a genuine attempt to get the ball?  If they gave it for the tackle then he shouldn't have been sent off.

 

9 hours ago, KentVillan said:

The shirt pull is definitely outside the box.

I think what they've done is play advantage on the shirt pull, give him a red card for that, and then penalty for the challenge in the box.

OR they've decided the challenge in the box was a deliberate foul and not a genuine attempt to play the ball.

Convoluted, and it would be nice if they would just give a proper explanation as it happens, so all the fans can understand the thought process.

This confused me for a while, but this is explicitly a penalty in the laws of the game for the shirt holding. It had to be a penalty, and therefore a red as there's no attempt on the ball

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

Quote

If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

 

[Lichfield Dean]

3 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

 

This confused me for a while, but this is explicitly a penalty in the laws of the game for the shirt holding. It had to be a penalty, and therefore a red as there's no attempt on the ball

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

Just came here to post the same thing! I'd not realised this before somehow.

[sharkyvilla]

9 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

 

This confused me for a while, but this is explicitly a penalty in the laws of the game for the shirt holding. It had to be a penalty, and therefore a red as there's no attempt on the ball

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

 

Indeed, I was just a bit dubious as to whether he still had hold of him when they got to the box.  I haven't seen it since to check.

[StefanAVFC]

18 hours ago, bobzy said:

Authorities conspiring by giving the right decision 

I still don't understand why anyone could think it's correct. A failed header because of the presence of an offside player is not a 'deliberate action'. A deliberate action would be an attempted back header to the keeper to Salah as Salah's presence doesn't influence the defender.

[fightoffyour]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I still don't understand why anyone could think it's correct. A failed header because of the presence of an offside player is not a 'deliberate action'. A deliberate action would be an attempted back header to the keeper to Salah as Salah's presence doesn't influence the defender.

I don't think anyone here thinks it should be correct, but apparently the authorities have decided that is a deliberate action. He deliberately headed the ball that's for sure. It didn't go where he wanted it to, either cleared forwards or back to the keeper.

It's this vagueness that allows for interpretation. Rules shouldn't really by interpretable in different ways.

Salah's presence brings in another clause as mentioned by @ThunderPower_14 above, and yes probably should have been invoked in this case. Again, open to interpretation.

 

Would it really be so bad to forget any interfering with play and deliberate actions and just call an offside if any player is in an offside position? Did many goals used to get ruled out for this when someone was just stood up by the corner flag for example?

The most common situation I can think of ithat this would affect is when an attacker who isn't going to receive the first ball stands well offside from a free kick that will be crossed into the box, and it might even be better if that were eliminated - this is a problem for the defending team in that they are essentially not allowed to mark a player during the first phase of play.

Players would just have to quickly learn to always be onside, but all grey areas would be removed.

[The_Steve]

Only a yellow. It's an obvious red for the high boot and denying Phil a clear run on goal.

 

[sharkyvilla]

14 minutes ago, The_Steve said:

Only a yellow. It's an obvious red for the high boot and denying Phil a clear run on goal.

 

Yeah technically I think he wasn't the last man so stayed on the pitch but still very lucky.  I think the rule needs changing so any keeper making a deluberate or reckless foul like that so far outside the box should be a red because he is still denying a clear goalscoring opportunity.

[The_Steve]

10 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Yeah technically I think he wasn't the last man so stayed on the pitch but still very lucky.  I think the rule needs changing so any keeper making a deluberate or reckless foul like that so far outside the box should be a red because he is still denying a clear goalscoring opportunity.

Think he bottled it as Leeds had no subs and it the was the 89th minute. Still not excuse. I'm sure if Emi did it, you'd get a lot more outrage.