But his ability to play the ball was not interfered with because he was nowhere near the ball.
Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion
- Thread starter Annihilate Now!
- Start date
Correct.
It also doesn't matter if the goalkeeper can see the ball over the player's head. The offside player is still standing directly in his line of vision, which may impact his ability to play the ball. Because having to look past the offside player directly in front of him might impact his judgement or decision making in terms of reacting to the header. Even being a factor the goalkeeper has to consider in that situation is enough.
It's a very straightforward call, which is why it barely took any time to make. You can't be standing dead centre in front of a goalkeeper in between him and the ball and not possibly impact his decision making.
The ball goes in the goal less than a second later... I'm not sure what your point is?
Absolutely zero media coverage of any of the questionable decisions in the West Brom game, almost like it suits them. Sssshhhhhhhh
The point is he was nowhere near the ball and never at any time was prevented from playing the ball.
If I was Tuchel I'd go full Benitez in the press conference, ask why is a ref from Liverpool officiating Liverpool games etc.
Take the fine for "bringing the game into disrepute" but it puts pressure on the refs for the next two games.
You've just selectively forgotten bits of my first post then? The presence of an opponent which may impact on the ability to see or play the ball. Whether it's physically possible for a save to be made, or whether he definitely can or definitely cannot see the ball is irrelevant. The goalkeeper is standing in the goal. The ball goes in the goal. Ergo his decision-making may have been impacted in doing anything about that.
Mike Dean is a Tranmere fan mate which means he can't have any links at all to Liverpool obviously. The same as Anthony Taylor is an Altrincham fan...
Going by that though then we’ll be back to the old offside law where any player in an offside position has to be called offside, as the keeper can just state that any player, including the one standing in an offside position, could have received the ball at any time, even if by the touchline, and as such may have impacted his decision making. This guy, going by the evidence, had absolutely no impact on Alisson’s decision making since he saw the header, adequately reacted to it and had no impact on any event that unfolded.
What I’m saying is that if no account is taken into whether the goalkeeper was affected, merely if he could have been affected, then any goal can be chalked off for offside if the keeper’s good enough at arguing his case, despite reacting in a way as if the player wasn’t there.
I said it earlier. Alisson drew no attention to Phillips in his protests which clearly shows he was not impeded by him being there at all. He only pointed at Bartley in case the officials thought the header had gone in untouched for them to check if Bartley was offside.
That should have decided it. If a keeper thinks a player is remotely in their vision you can be sure as hell that's their first go-to.
This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.
It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
That player offside there is neither impeding the goalkeepers view of the ball or impeding him trying to play the ball
This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.
It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
Il
Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.
Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:
In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball and nobody was arguing that he couldn't. And obviously Phillips is even more obviously in the line of sight in this case given he's actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.
Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can or can't fully or partially see the ball over the top of or to the side of the offside player.
This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.
It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.
Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:
In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball and nobody was arguing that he couldn't. And obviously Phillips is even more obviously in the line of sight in this case given he's actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.
Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can or can't fully or partially see the ball over the top of or to the side of the offside player.
That’s a totally different situation where the player in front of the keeper is directly in line of sight of the shot and even had to move. It’s obviously offside.Il
Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.
Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:
In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball. And obviously Phillips is even more so in this case.
Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can see the ball to the side of the offside player.
if the everton player squared it to a team mate who then passed it into the net that would be a similar situation. And it would have stood as a goal
Those two situations are in no way similar. You would’ve had a point if the header had gone through the legs of the offside player who jumped out of the way in the last second.Il
Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.
Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:
In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball and nobody was arguing that he couldn't. And obviously Phillips is even more obviously in the line of sight in this case given he's actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.
Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can or can't fully or partially see the ball over the top of or to the side of the offside player.
Your position is that if the Everton player had crossed it to the back post for a header and de Gea couldn’t make it across to save it that it should’ve been disallowed for offside anyway which is a ridiculous stance.
It doesn't just count when he's in the way of a shot, just as if someone is deemed to be "interfering with play" it doesn't only count if they're doing so when the ball is shot.
In this case they're judging the line of sight from the moment of the header, in the same way the line of sight was judged from the moment of the shot in the Everton example. And in both cases the offside player is standing in the goalkeeper's line of vision.
You're right that Siggurdson had the extra wrinkle of also taking a deliberate action to avoid the ball but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that in both cases the player was deemed to be in the goalkeeper's line of vision despite the goalkeeper being able to see the ball.
Explain how it was impacted? Could he get to the header? No. Did the player in front of him therefore prevent him from playing the ball? No. If you explain how it would unfold differently without Phillips there then I could maybe see where you’re coming from.
The fact that the ball went through Siggurdson is irrelevant to the point I'm making.
In this case people are arguing that Phillips can't have been in the line of sight of the goalkeeper as the goalkeeper could still see the ball. In the Everton/United example, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight at the moment of that picture despite De Gea obviously being able to see the ball. Ergo, being able to see the ball doesn't mean the player isn't in the goalkeeper's line of vision. This is also reflected in multiple other similar incidents where they don't get into analysing whether or not the goalkeeper could see the ball over/around/through the offside player in front of him. If they're in the direct line of vision, that's enough.
The fact that Siggy then also took deliberate action once the ball came towards him is separate to that point.
This is the point that anyone saying it’s the right decision is completely ignoring. I can’t think of a single example of a goal being disallowed for somebody being in the keepers line of sight on the pass before a completely different player scored a goal.
But as you’ve pointed out, De Gea’s decision is impacted by the player stepping over the ball because it could be deflected at any moment. That was not the case for the West Brom goal so it is not remotely similar.
Are these the rules about it being a shot on goal or just a pass just how you are reading them? Genuinely curious as I see the situations totally different if you’re saying it’s the same as the everton decision due to the rules. I thought everton was offside because sigurdson clearly got in the way and had to move. You are saying any kind of assist square there or cross to back post instead of a shot and goal would be ruled out and I just can’t see that.
It’s amazing the way people argue sometimes. The two incidents are very much similar in a myriad of fecking aspects. Both passive offsides, both standing directly in the line of sight, the keeper can still see the ball, despite the player being directly in his line of sight.
The fact that they are not identical is not an argument against them being similar.
“In no way similar” is a barking mad thing to say about those two incidents.
They’re similar but totally different
Well one is a shot that a player has to move out of the way of before it goes in and clearly impacts a keepers ability to position himself when he was no idea if the player in the offside position will deflect the ball. The other one is a pass to a different player who then shoots. The appropriate freeze frame to use would be the shot in both instances. One would have a player in the keepers line of vision and one wouldn’t.
If instead of shooting the Everton player crosses it to the back post and an onside player nods it in is it still offside?
Of course it wouldn’t be. De Gea’s ability to play the ball wouldn’t have been impacted by the player on the ground. Just like Allison’s wasn’t.
That's where I'm at, but I might just misunderstand the law.
If you weren’t right then surely we’d have other examples of goals being disallowed for somebody being in a players line of sight before a pass to a different player.
Yes, but that's a separate point that isn't relevant to the line of sight argument, which is what I was using the Siggurdson to illustrate. They're two very different incidents, so the point of the comparison was just to show how line of sight is determined.
To your point though, let's imagine that instead of going through Siggy the ball instead went to one of his teammates at the back post who scored. The referee/VAR would at that point have to decide whether Siggy's presence in an offside position had interfered with De Gea's ability to play the ball. However, it is always a subjective decision. They might decide that because the ball travelled the entire way across the box to the back post, De Gea was in fact unimpeded in his attempt to play the ball. Or they might not. And other refs might or might not decide differently.
Relating that to the West Brom/Liverpool goal, it is also a subjective decision they have to make. However, in this instance they were unlikely to decide that the goal should be allowed to stand and extremely unlikely to overturn the decision to disallow it.
The key reason for this is what we mean by the offside player impacting the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball. If the offside player's presence means that the goalkeeper's ability to see the ball, or ability to judge the situation, or ability to making a decision, or ability to react may have been (as distinct from was) impacted by the player standing directly in-between him and the ball, that's enough for the goal to be disallowed. It doesn't matter if the offside player had no impact on what he physically did, it doesn't matter if the goal would have been scored anyway.
To put it another way: if having to look past Phillips to see the ball might have intruded even slightly on the goalkeeper's reading of what was happening front of him (even just as the most minute of distractions), the goal can be disallowed, as his ability to attempt to play the ball has been impacted (because his decision/judgement/reaction has been impacted).
And it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that at the moment of the header, when the goalkeeper is unsure where the ball is going, that the offside player he was having to look past to see the ball can't have been even a slight factor in his assessment of what was happening in front of him. He had to be aware of him, because he was standing directly between him and the ball.
Last edited:
The Sigurdsson one wasn't line of vision. It was his involvement when he moved out of the way and was in the trajectory of the ball.
Can't have it both ways. Line of vision only carries weight when it impacts 'clearly' as stated in 11.2.
If the player moves, he is an active component in the action.
Can't have the old and the new at the same time.
Can't have it both ways. Line of vision only carries weight when it impacts 'clearly' as stated in 11.2.
If the player moves, he is an active component in the action.
Can't have the old and the new at the same time.
That's absolutely not the appropriate freeze frame in both instances, because it's not the first time the ball is played towards someone in an offside position, whether it was a shot or a pass is irrelevant. To demand it be judged on the shot is pointless. It can be a shot, it can be a pass, or it can be a deflection, the important bit is the player standing in an offside position, and whether he's interfering with play or not. Not least so because the header that ended up being a pass could have just as well been a shot. You have no way of knowing where the ball is gonna go as a keeper, and you have to position yourself in part according to the players around you.
If you understand the keepers ability to play the ball as his decision making process, players in such close proximity will always affect that, whether the keeper was able to save the shot in some alternative universe or not.
Last edited:
It is a subjective decision. Which is why you were wrong to say that anyone thinking it was onside was wrong.
When it comes to a subjective decision it’s reasonable to ask why somebody thinks he was impacted and give a reasonable reason of how he was prevented from playing the ball. I haven’t seen anybody do that. It can be done for the Everton example you’ve used.
He is not listening to the other side, wasting your time.
It wasn’t played towards somebody in an offside position though was it? It was played towards somebody in an onside position.
Can you give an example of offside being given under that interpretation of the law for the pass before somebody shoots?
It happens too quickly for Allison’s position to change. Just like the deflection on Bruno’s goal happened too quickly for his position to change. Had Phillips not been there it would’ve been the same result so he wasn’t prevented from playing the ball or attempting to play the ball. That’s where the big difference to the Everton goal comes in.
Probably. Once Dale Johnson has spoken that’s it over.
Not exactly.
I'm saying that if instead of going through Siggurdson the ball had instead gone to the back post, the referee would have had the same subjective decision to make as the ref in the West Brom & Liverpool game. I can't say he would have come to the same conclusion, as the circumstances would be different (not least because the ball would have travelled the entire way across goal away from Siggurdson). Subjective calls are subjective after all and depend on the ref and the specific circumstances.
But in both cases the goalkeeper being able to see the ball wouldn't change the fact that there's a call to be made as to whether the offside player was a factor in the decision facing the goalkeeper. In the Siggurdson case the fact that he then effectively dummied the ball just made it a nailed on decision.
That offside call in the FA cup final isn’t talked about enough. The ref could easily have drawn the lines a few frames earlier then he did because there is no way you can with 100% accuracy say when the ball is no longer connected to the passing players foot. It’s a subjective call as far as I’m aware. Given that the benefit should go to the attacking player why on earth would you make such a call in a final? It’s a disturbing trend we are seeing.
VAR should eliminate obvious errors.How is an exception made for offsides?
VAR should eliminate obvious errors.How is an exception made for offsides?
[
well that’s what I’ve been saying from the start. If in the everton game the ball was squared and then scored the ref would have to make a subjective decision whether sigurdson impeded and he obviously wouldn’t have impeded from where he was so goal would likely stand. That’s how I view the West Brom goal
I tried explaining it in that post but I may not have done so clearly.
In the moment of the header, the goalkeeper doesn't know what's going to happen next or where exactly the ball is going to go (or even that it won't end up going towards the offside player). He has to read the situation, judge it and react very quickly. In this case he was having to read the situation while that offside player was standing right in front of him, directly between him and the header he was trying to read.
So the question is: could the presence of the of the offside player he was having to look past to see the ball have intruded at all on his ability to read, judge or react to what was happening in front of him. Because if the offside player was even a slight distraction to the goalkeeper's ability to assess what was occurring in front of him, he's impacted the goalkeeper's ability to try and play the ball. Because "trying to play the ball" includes that reading, judging and reacting process.
And the important point here is that it doesn't matter if it actually did impact anything the goalkeeper physically did, or even if the goalkeeper was physically capable of doing anything anyway. Being a factor in his thought process is enough.
So to allow the goal in this instance you would have to be able to say "I'm sure that the player standing directly in front of the goalkeeper (who he had to look past to actually see the ball and who he didn't know wasn't going to get the ball from the header) didn't register in his thought process as he attempted to react to the header". Which is quite a hard thing to assert. So while it is still a subjective call, it's quite a straightforward one in this case.
It's not even clear that's a pass. It's a pass with hindsight, which Alisson, unlike you doesn't have. He has to position himself without the benefit of prolepsis. The positioning and the decision making process takes place before something you later know is a pass happens. You can't discount all that because of a weird demand that it must be a shot when he doesn't know that it isn't.
'It would have been the same' is speculative and unfalsifiable. We can't determine that arguing a day later, much less in a couple of minutes that the officials had, so they will apply a heuristic which comes down to line of sight and proximity, and on both those counts Phillips is guilty of being offside.
This all 'can you provide an example' thing is also quite weird. It's as if prior refereeing decisions have a legislative power like the US supreme court, and some precedent determines all subsequent judgements. Most of these incidents we are arguing about here fall in the rare and uncanny category anyway. It's only a recent phenomenon that we have the technology that places them on the radar. Not having a long history and tradition of similar calls shouldn't be the measure of them being correct or not.
Last edited: