You're working backwards to explain a mistake here.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
You're working backwards to explain a mistake here.
What? If we're judging if a goalscorer is offside, we look where they were at the moment the ball was played to them. Not where they were when they eventually end up shooting. Otherwise players could get the ball in an offside position, run back onside and score.
There's no mistake. It's literally how offside works.
Nope. It was a mistake in the referee's judgment. It happens. You're trying to explain the judgment based on a set of rules which are applied at the ref's discretion.
Mistakes happen.
How long before VAR becomes legitimated match fixing? I’m not saying we are there but I don’t trust the FA and league not not use it to make their products even more exciting. No doubt a pool goal was a dream scenario for the money makers. If it was pool who scored the dodgy offside goal would they have been so keen to overturn it?
Its ridulous when you look at that. Especially when you see where the ball drops to
Are you confusing Bartley for Phillips? They do look alike, I'll grant you that.
Yes, but Bartley, the goal scorer, was onside. Can you give a single example of that rule being used for the pass before the shot because the keepers line of sight was blocked on the pass?
Look at the actual rule and explain how Allison was prevented from playing the ball on the header? He was nowhere near it so he wasn’t prevented from doing anything.
Yep, Allison clearly looking straight at the ball.
Even if he’s right between Alisson and the ball he can see over him, for feck’s sake. If he was sitting on the ground, would he have been offside too then?
In the picture above he’s even doing the little jump to set himself up for the shot so he obviously sees exactly when the shot is taken
Just goes to prove that if you aggressively appeal for any decision there’s a chance you might buy one off the ref.
In the picture above he’s even doing the little jump to set himself up for the shot so he obviously sees exactly when the shot is taken
Just goes to prove that if you aggressively appeal for any decision there’s a chance you might buy one off the ref.
How on earth is it a mistake?
This is the moment the ball is played:
The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
Hes literally following the path of the ball over as it falls to the WB player.Even if he’s right between Alisson and the ball he can see over him, for feck’s sake. If he was sitting on the ground, would he have been offside too then?
In the picture above he’s even doing the little jump to set himself up for the shot so he obviously sees exactly when the shot is taken
Just goes to prove that if you aggressively appeal for any decision there’s a chance you might buy one off the ref.
The ball is above Phillips. How can the keeper not see it? It’s irrelevant anyway.How on earth is it a mistake?
This is the moment the ball is played:
The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
Look at the picture posted a few posts up. Alisson clearly has his eyes fixated on the ball as he can see over the WBA player. Can’t just look at it in 2D.How on earth is it a mistake?
This is the moment the ball is played:
The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
It should be pointed out that one of the reasons he's "in Allison's eyeline" is that one second earlier Allison had just tried to push him out of the way
I haven't see this, does the boy heading the ball score? Because he's clearly blocking Alisons view.How on earth is it a mistake?
This is the moment the ball is played:
The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
Again, you're working backwards to explain a mistake based on the ref's discretion. The ref made a mistake here, not VAR.How on earth is it a mistake?
This is the moment the ball is played:
The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
This is not an offside call which can be empirically determined by lines. It's a judgment call. Same one that happened a few times this season already and which had different conclusions. One of them being a game involving Liverpool vs West Ham.
They don't use goal line technology in La Liga?
As we saw when Everton had a goal disallowed against us (when Siggurdson dummied the ball in an offside position), impacting the ability of the goalkeeper to play the ball doesn't just mean physically preventing him from doing so. If the offside player's presence impinges on the goalkeeper's ability to make a decision that counts too, regardless of whether it physically impacted on his ability to play the ball or even if he would have been able/unable to save it anyway.
Think of it this way: Imagine players were allowed to stand dead in front of the goalkeeper in an offside position like that. What would stop them from doing that literally all the time to put the goalkeeper off? By your logic as long as he jumped out of the way when someone was shooting at goal, it wouldn't matter.
If he was sitting down in the same position, would you have said it was offside? If no, why not?How on earth is it a mistake?
This is the moment the ball is played:
The only way the offside player could be more in the goalkeeper's line of sight is if he had his hands over his eyes.
It doesn't matter if the goalkeeper can see the ball. Just as it didn't matter if De Gea could see the ball when Everton had their goal disallowed against us. Even if the goalkeeper can see the ball, the offside player is still directly in his line of sight. It doesn't only count as offside if the player physically blocks the goalkeeper's view of the ball.
No, this is wrong. There is no common sense in what you're saying. Line of sight impingement is meant as an obstruction of the goalkeeper's view of the ball.
Your own explanation above contradicts what you're saying. The Everton incident was extremely different. The ball was headed in the direction of the player, who actively moved out at the last second. Phillips was in a complete deadzone there.
If you mean the tweet I posted above, see the second one I added. Even if the goalkeeper can see over the player, the player being stood in front of him still impacts the keeper.
You’re comparing apples and oranges here.
Everton’s goal was disallowed because the player in an offside position dummied the ball and impacted on de Gea’s decision making. This guy was merely between the goalkeeper and the ball, without doing any sort of action to disturb the goalkeeper. As such, the player in the line of sight has to prevent the goalkeeper from being able to react to a shot or header by actually being in his line of sight and preventing him from seeing the ball. Note that it says line of sight and not field of vision. As is seen from the picture taken from the side Alisson can clearly see the ball being headed over the WBA player’s head. He even does a little jump to prepare himself for a header, and then moves towards his right as the header goes to Bartley. All these actions aretotally adequate for a keeper with an unimpeded view and the situation would’ve played out exactly the same if the WBA player had been sitting down, lying down or been in the dressing room.
https://static-3eb8.kxcdn.com/files/document-category/062019/frRhKJNjSBAtiyt.pdf
Rule 11.2
2. Offside offence 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
Rule 11.2
2. Offside offence 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
Dale Johnson is spouting some nonsense about the rules. It's up to the ref to decide.
Yes because he literally had to step over the ball. What decision did Allison have to make on the header? It was going wide, he was beat by the deflection. At which stage Phillips wasn’t in his line of sight.
This isn’t my logic, it’s the rules. He has to have his line of sight blocked. It wasn’t, he could clearly see the ball. For it to be comparable to the Everton goal, Phillips would’ve had to be in a position to affect the trajectory of the ball. He wasn’t.
If what you’re suggesting became a problem they would change the rules to deal with it. Refs can’t make decisions based on what they or you think they should be. They have to use the rules as they’re written. How was Allison prevented from playing the ball by Matt Phillips?
But what if the ball isnt going towards goal? Its headed down, not towards the keeper.
Maybe because its so close but what if theres high line, an offside player blocks the view of a player who plays a simple square ball and its blasted in from the edge of the box.
Then that has to be offside?
There is no law that says you're offside if you're in a player's line of vision. It's only if you are preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball by being so. At no point, even if Phillips doesn't exist, is Allison ever in a position to play the ball between the header and Bartley receiving it. In my view by the time Bartley receives it Phillips is no longer in his line of vision, so he can't be interfering with Allison's ability to play the ball.
Yes, but he has to be in a position for it to prevent Allison playing the ball. As I’ve covered in a previous post.
Key point here is that the refs and VAR don't have to decide whether it did interfere with his ability to play the ball. Just whether it could have. Even if it had zero impact in real terms on his ability to do something to stop the goal, impacting on his ability to try and do something is enough.
Dale Johnson saying something doesn’t make it a fact. He’s a journalist.
If he had the ability to play the ball were Phillips not there I'd agree, but in my view he wasn't in such a position. If he had zero ability to play the ball with or without Phillips then Phillips had no material impact on his ability to play the ball. I mean, Phillips 'could have' interfered with his ability to play the ball were Alisson in a position to do so, but he wasn't, so Phillips couldn't.
I remember an Everton goal being disallowed against us a while back and there was uproar and Calvert Lewin even got an interview to say how it was a disaster. Have WBA been allowed to bring it up? Did Souness and/or Redknapp condemn it?
They also spent several minutes looking at it. Today got a cursory glance.
At that time few refs confirmed why it was given as offside, 'Line of sight' or 'line of vision' was the term used and player was in line of sight of the keeper. Likewise today's decision was spot on too.
The refs/VAR don't make a call on whether Alisson could or couldn't have actually done anything without Phillips being there though, it isn't a factor in their decision. Because if it was then they'd be dragged into the tricky area of deciding what is/isn't saveable for a goalkeeper.
The other way to phrase it would be "did Phillips impact on Allison's ability to try to play the ball?". Even if we think it would have been a materially hopeless attempt, the offside would still be given for impacting on it.
We all hate Liverpool, but surely you can't say that a guy standing a few cm directly in front of the keeper isn't interfering with play.
In my opinion if Phillips isn't there Allison doesn't save it. Too much pace on the ball. However phillips is right in front of him. As the laws go he is obstructing the view of the keeper and its rightly ruled out.