Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

[Bubz27]

He didn’t run straight towards Mings though, watch it again. He turns and runs towards Mings once Mings controls the ball. Not before. He clearly doesn’t impede Mings control, as Mings is able to chest the ball down completely unopposed.

Yeah but that's not the rule. It doesn't say you have to impede him and if the player can control the ball unopposed then it's fine. It says an obvious action which impacts the ability of a player to play the ball. Which I think he did, and you think he didn't. Opinions ay.

 

[padr81]

It is black and white. The LOTG pretty clearly state what constitute "affecting the play", and what Rodri does, doesn't fall within that category

It's dumb, because simple common sense points to the fact that he does affect the play. I don't think there is anyone who doesn't believe so. And yet, because the way he does affect the play doesn't fall within the boundaries of what the LOTG say constitute interfering with the play, he doesn't

Exactly this. I think people are confusing common sense with the rules of football and if VAR has thought us anything its they don't go together very well.

 

[Nick7]

Bottom of page 99. “Interfere with an opponent” by “challenging for the ball”. He fecking tackled him!

He tackled him after Mings controls the ball. Page 100

“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 gain an advantage “

Mings cheating the ball down is him deliberately playing the ball.

 

[The Irish Connection]

does he wear bells on his socks?

I was originally replying to the lad who said you’d know if you played the game, and you would hear him running towards ya, especially without the crowd.

 

[Bubz27]

But it can't be in situations like this. How do they make it black or white. At what point do they decide the offside player is allowed back in? How long should he give Mings? There are too many variables, same with a defender sticking out a leg and deflecting the ball to an offside striker, its hard to tell between a block (save in the rules) and an attempted pass by (playing the ball).

If Mings did know for sure he was there and chested the ball down he should know Rodri's not gonna be offside. It will be interesting to hear Mings take on it to be honest.

I don't make the rules. Just a shame it came down to someone's opinion that Rodri didn't impact Mings ability to play the ball. How can anyone know that? In which case, more often than not, you'd see the player who was 15 yards offside when the ball asplayed, flagged for being offside.

 

[Nick7]

Yeah but that's not the rule. It doesn't say you have to impede him and if the player can control the ball unopposed then it's fine. It says an obvious action which impacts the ability of a player to play the ball. Which I think he did, and you think he didn't. Opinions ay.

No mate, you’re just wrong. It’s black and white. Rodri did not impact Mings ability to chest the ball down. Once Mings does that Rodri is no longer offside. I quoted the relevant part for that above.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

He tackled him after Mings controls the ball. Page 100

“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 gain an advantage “

Mings cheating the ball down is him deliberately playing the ball.

He didn’t “receive” the ball from Mings. That would apply if he intercepted a backpass. That didn’t happen. He tackled him. He was offside when the initial pass was played towards him, then challenged Mings for the ball and took it off him.

 

[Nick7]

He didn’t “receive” the ball from Mings. That would apply if he intercepted a backpass. That didn’t happen. He tackled him. He came back from an offside position, challenged Mings for the ball and took it off him.

It apples in either scenario. “Playing the ball” doesn’t just mean passing the ball.

 

[Bubz27]

It is black and white. The LOTG pretty clearly state what constitute "affecting the play", and what Rodri does, doesn't fall within that category

It's dumb, because simple common sense points to the fact that he does affect the play. I don't think there is anyone who doesn't believe so. And yet, because the way he does affect the play doesn't fall within the boundaries of what the LOTG say constitute interfering with the play, he doesn't

Well no, the LOTG says you can affect play by making an obvious action which impacts the players ability to play the ball. Me personally, I'd say Rodri is affecting Mings ability to play the ball. But that's me, personally.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It apples in either scenario. “Playing the ball” doesn’t just mean passing the ball.

I’m aware what playing the ball means. Do you realise the difference between “receiving the ball” and “challenging for the ball”? Because I know which phrase I’d use to describe winning the ball in a tackle.

 

[noodlehair]

Just further highlights why VAR doesn't work

Having VAR doesn't solve the problem when the problem is that the people in charge of the rules don't know what they're doing.

If that goal is allowed under the rules then it means the rule is wrong. The whole point of the offside rule is so you can't just stand behind the opposition defence and then get the ball.

I can understand if someone else tackles Mings then it comes to Rodri after he's back onside, but having a player 20 yards offside just run back and tackle someone as they're controlling the ball is clear and obvious nonsense. You might as well let players run ahead of the ball and rugby tackle the keeper as he tries to save a shot.

 

[padr81]

I don't make the rules. Just a shame it came down to someone's opinion that Rodri didn't impact Mings ability to play the ball. How can anyone know that? In which case, more often than not, you'd see the player who was 15 yards offside when the ball asplayed, flagged for being offside.

You keep saying opinion but every offside decision, every decision in general comes down to opinion, even with those stupid lines as they can be out by inches depending on frame rate. In this case, its was the opinion of the referee and another referee in the VAR. Its a case of informed and coached opinion on what the rules are versus opinions of average joes like ourselves but if the ref's opinion is thats not against the rules when its something so blatant then its likely not. This wasn't like a 50/50 peno or something where the ref had poor vision etc..

 

[Bubz27]

No mate, you’re just wrong. It’s black and white. Rodri did not impact Mings ability to chest the ball down. Once Mings does that Rodri is no longer offside. I quoted the relevant part for that above.

Whenever I've played football, a player a few yards behind me has always affected my ability to play (or control) the ball, as opposed to no player within 10 yards of me. Maybe Mings doesn't miscontrol that chest if Rodri isn't there? Who knows. But I seriously doubt anyone who's ever played football to say an opposition player within a few yards of them doesn't affect their ability to play the ball.

 

[padr81]

I’m aware what playing the ball means. Do you realise the difference between “receiving the ball” and “challenging for the ball”? Because I know which phrase I’d use to describe winning the ball in a tackle.

Did he challenge for the ball while Mings was chesting it?

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Did he challenge for the ball while Mings was chesting it?

Nowhere in those laws does it specify that an offside player is allowed to challenge for the ball if a defender needs more than one touch to get rid of it. This whole thing hinges on a stupid interpretation of “phases of play”. Rodri should not have been allowed to get as involved as he did when coming back from an offside position. Not unless Mings accidentally passed it to him. Which didn’t happen.

 

[Bubz27]

You keep saying opinion but every offside decision, every decision in general comes down to opinion, even with those stupid lines as they can be out by inches depending on frame rate. In this case, its was the opinion of the referee and another referee in the VAR. Its a case of informed and coached opinion on what the rules are versus opinions of average joes like ourselves but if the ref's opinion is thats not against the rules when its something so blatant then its likely not. This wasn't like a 50/50 peno or something where the ref had poor vision etc..

No way, not every offside decision comes down to opinion.

Refs can be wrong, especially in the heat of the moment, so saying this decision is correct because a ref made it isn't a compelling argument to me.

I'm going to respectfully sticky to this and say an opposition player a few yards away from you affects your ability to play the ball. We see it all the time, lots of time and space, perfect control. Player within a few yards, loose touch. And by the rules Nick7 showed me, that means Rodri was offside.

Whenever I've played football, a player a few yards behind me has always affected my ability to play (or control) the ball, as opposed to no player within 10 yards of me. Maybe Mings doesn't miscontrol that chest if Rodri isn't there? Who knows. But I seriously doubt anyone who's ever played football to say an opposition player within a few yards of them doesn't affect their ability to play the ball.

 

[giorno]

I don't make the rules. Just a shame it came down to someone's opinion that Rodri didn't impact Mings ability to play the ball. How can anyone know that? In which case, more often than not, you'd see the player who was 15 yards offside when the ball asplayed, flagged for being offside.

Bolded is how it used to be, and frankly i liked it better. But that would often come down to interpretation, and IFAB wanted to make it black and white, so they changed it

Rodri did not impede Mings' line of sight, challenge him for the ball, directly - that is physically - impede his ability to play the ball = it's not offside

That he might impact his decision making, or cause him to feck up, does not matter.

 

[padr81]

Nowhere in those laws does it specify that an offside player is allowed to challenge for the ball if a defender needs more than one touch to get rid of it.

Yes it does, chesting the ball is clearly and deliberately playing the ball. Mings clearly chested the ball (played it), before Rodri tackled. Nowhere in the rules does it say you haven't played the ball because you fecked up have 5 more touches to sort your feet out. It says first contact or something, as long as thats deliberate, onside.

 

[Nick7]

Whenever I've played football, a player a few yards behind me has always affected my ability to play (or control) the ball, as opposed to no player within 10 yards of me. Maybe Mings doesn't miscontrol that chest if Rodri isn't there? Who knows. But I seriously doubt anyone who's ever played football to say an opposition player within a few yards of them doesn't affect their ability to play the ball.

maybe Mings would have turned around and blasted the ball into his own net if Rodri wasn’t there. Maybe’s don’t matter. What matters is he knowingly, and deliberately controlled the ball and thus played Rodri onside.

 

[noodlehair]

Did he challenge for the ball while Mings was chesting it?

The bit I think anyone would struggle to explain is why, if this is the rule and obviously has been for an amount of time, this is the first time ever I can think of a goal like this being allowed to stand.

The rest of the time it doesn't get to the stage of the goal even happening because the flag would go up straight away...and you could probably find hundreds of examples of that this season...and countless hundreds more where the player just hasn't challenged to win the ball because they know they'd be offside...this even happened in the Fulham vs United game immediately afterwards!

When the way the officials interpret a rule just suddenly changes in the middle of a game it takes away any integrity the rules have.

 

[Bubz27]

Bolded is how it used to be, and frankly i liked it better. But that would often come down to interpretation, and IFAB wanted to make it black and white, so they changed it

Rodri did not impede Mings' line of sight, challenge him for the ball, directly - that is physically - impede his ability to play the ball = it's not offside

That he might impact his decision making, or cause him to feck up, does not matter.

But that is not the rule.

And your last paragraph I totally disagree with. Impacting someone's decision making is by the very definition, impacting the ability of an opponent to play the ball. Which is the rule.

 

[Cardozo]

An opposition player two yards away from you always has an affect on the play. I'm sure you've played football and know there's a huge difference between recieving the ball under pressure or not.

The difference here is Mings thought Rodri was offside so couldn't get involved. Just by that alone, he's affecting the play. That's why he wasn't "worried" about Rodri and didn't just head it away.

Exactly. He’s ran towards the ball coming down from an offside position. So he’s interfering with play.

Just like if he’d gone to head it and scuffed it behind him, the guy would have been called offside.

VAR has created this ‘phase’ nonsense. It’s quite clear to anyone the guys offside and Mings was within his rights to collect the ball and play it out. He was tackled about a millisecond after chesting it. Not like he brought it down and switched off to have it nicked off him.

I’m not sure we’re even talking about the right rule. As soon as he ran towards the ball he interfered with the play.

 

[padr81]

The bit I think anyone would struggle to explain is why, if this is the rule and obviously has been for an amount of time, this is the first time ever I can think of a goal like this being allowed to stand.

The rest of the time it doesn't get to the stage of the goal even happening because the flag would go up straight away...and you could probably find hundreds of examples of that this season...and countless hundreds more where the player just hasn't challenged to win the ball because they know they'd be offside...this even happened in the Fulham vs United game immediately afterwards!

When the way the officials interpret a rule just suddenly changes in the middle of a game it takes away any integrity the rules have.

Because offsides are allowed to run now to see how they play out. The one today given how poor the chip forward was would likely have been allowed to run anyway. But players profiting from being offside on a poor defensive touch is nothing new.
And this is the stupid ruling.
https://www.dutchreferee.com/no-offside-because-of-deliberate-play/ The key part is the defender has control of his actions - not the outcome of his actions. While the Rodri one was a tackle, when Mings acted he hit all the mentioned criteria here.

Those goals are all shining examples of the same criteria just with defenders fecking up their actions.

 

[The Purley King]

Just further highlights why VAR doesn't work

Having VAR doesn't solve the problem when the problem is that the people in charge of the rules don't know what they're doing.

If that goal is allowed under the rules then it means the rule is wrong. The whole point of the offside rule is so you can't just stand behind the opposition defence and then get the ball.

I can understand if someone else tackles Mings then it comes to Rodri after he's back onside, but having a player 20 yards offside just run back and tackle someone as they're controlling the ball is clear and obvious nonsense. You might as well let players run ahead of the ball and rugby tackle the keeper as he tries to save a shot.

actually that is a very interesting point.
Surely all those keepers who save a shot and put it out into the 6 yard box are “deliberately playing the ball”
So how are all the strikers who are 2 yards off when the ball is hit offside?

 

[noodlehair]

maybe Mings would have turned around and blasted the ball into his own net if Rodri wasn’t there. Maybe’s don’t matter. What matters is he knowingly, and deliberately controlled the ball and thus played Rodri onside.

Going by this application of the rule, if a player tried to play another player through who was offside, and it flicked off a defender slightly en route who was trying to block the pass, suddenly it wouldn't be offside anymore because the defender "deliberately played the ball" which is just obvious bullsh*t. The flag would go up every single time and no one would bat an eyelid.

Because offsides are allowed to run now to see how they play out. The one today given how poor the chip forward was would likely have been allowed to run anyway. But players profiting from being offside on a poor defensive touch is nothing new.

It is new. I literally can't remember another example of a goal like this being allowed to stand or even being allowed to carry on long enough to be scored in the first place. You'll struggle to find a more bullsh*t decision all season, and there's been some pretty ridiculous ones to pick from.

 

[Fitchett]

I never used to use the word corruption before, but when you have proof of the manager of a team publicly reiterate points made from tv-pundits about a fabricated narrative with claims against the refs such as "unexplainable decisions" "Impossible numbers", based on selective information with the ultimate goal of effecting the outcome of the league title by putting pressure on referees of the league, the only appropriate word is corruption. It might be inadvertent but that's giving them the benefit of the doubt, either way it has to be covered, pointed out and removed to not ruin the spectacle and professionalism of the sport.

I've had the feeling that refs did thing on feeling and with pre-existing narratives in mind, and Clattenburg has admitted they are in fact trained to be a bigger part of the game than officiating a game of football. I've never thought it has been preplanned or any conspiracies really but when it's technically allowed for refs to make decisions that supports a narrative, over time it will completely ruin the integrity and you'll find situations like these, like the Spurs-Chelsea game etc. However, I've never seen a manager not be disciplined after making the comments Klopp did, and for it to not be investigated after this thing is irresponsible. Look, we won the game so I shouldn't care, but the integrity of the league is in question for me and I wont be watching any football at all if someone doesn't take time to actually cover and discuss the real problem with this league, instead of click baiting creating small time VAR headlines.

Good comments Mike. My daughter in law is a Manchester City fan (yes, I reprimanded my lad for that, but he assures me that she has redeeming qualities). She has long felt that the PL have a wider agenda to narrow things up, to keep up the interest in the league and thereby make more money, at the expense of sporting integrity. As can be seen from other threads on this site, the refs who get the biggest criticism on here are Michael Oliver, Martin Atkinson, Mike Dean and Jon Moss. I was astounded to read a post on Givemesport that Oliver, Atkinson and Dean are the three highest paid refs , each on a basic salary of £200k pa, plus match fees. The other PL refs are on a basic salary of either £70k or £48k pa. Therefore, is it within the bounds of possibility for these three to be an integral part of the PL's grander money making scam?

I share your astonishment that Klopp hasn't been pulled by the FA for his comments about penalties. Didn't Van Gaal once get fined for complimenting a referee in a pre match press conference? Double standards as always at the FA and PL.

 

[Bubz27]

maybe Mings would have turned around and blasted the ball into his own net if Rodri wasn’t there. Maybe’s don’t matter. What matters is he knowingly, and deliberately controlled the ball and thus played Rodri onside.

Huge jump there?

Maybes do matter when it comes to whether he affected the play or not.

I'll say with near certainty that Rodri impacted Mings ability to play the ball which puts him as interfering with play, which makes him offside according to the rules you linked.

I'm leaving it at that. I already know you'll disagree and say he didn't impact Mings ability to control the ball and I'll say he did because that's what footballers do when they're close to opposition players etc etc.

 

[#07]

Don't understand how Fred didn't get a penalty at Fulham.

 

[noodlehair]

Only thing I'd say in defence of VAR is that it had nothing to do with the decision. The guy is literally 20 yards offside and then creates a goal by directly interfering with play. You don't need VAR or some kind of degree in football law to see that.

 

[padr81]

Going by this application of the rule, if a player tried to play another player through who was offside, and it flicked off a defender slightly en route who was trying to block the pass, suddenly it wouldn't be offside anymore because the defender "deliberately played the ball" which is just obvious bullsh*t. The flag would go up every single time and no one would bat an eyelid.



It is new. I literally can't remember another example of a goal like this being allowed to stand or even being allowed to carry on long enough to be scored in the first place. You'll struggle to find a more bullsh*t decision all season, and there's been some pretty ridiculous ones to pick from.

See the reply to you above the referee explaining it with video's. Player clearly offside, defender tries to deliberately play it, doesn't control it properly, leads to goal. Exactly what happened today.

 

[padr81]

Huge jump there?

Maybes do matter when it comes to whether he affected the play or not.

I'll say with near certainty that Rodri impacted Mings ability to play the ball which puts him as interfering with play, which makes him offside according to the rules you linked.

I'm leaving it at that. I already know you'll disagree and say he didn't impact Mings ability to control the ball and I'll say he did because that's what footballers do when they're close to opposition players etc etc.

Would you say the actions of the offside players here effected the defenders decision making...
https://www.dutchreferee.com/no-offside-because-of-deliberate-play/

I'm not trying to be a dick by the way and I agree to disagree, just curious.

 

[giorno]

But that is not the rule.

And your last paragraph I totally disagree with. Impacting someone's decision making is by the very definition, impacting the ability of an opponent to play the ball. Which is the rule.

It's not. The rule deliberately requires direct interfence, not passive interference. It requires an obvious action. Being somewhat close to a defender does not constitue an obvious action

 

[noodlehair]

Don't understand how Fred didn't get a penalty at Fulham.

Because he chucked himelf on the floor as if he'd been hit by a train when it wasn't even really a foul!

I wouldn't have been happy at all if we had a penalty given against us for that. Our players need to stop doing this as well. We sometimes mess up 2-3 promising attacks a game trying by trying to cheat cheap penalties out of the ref. Martial in particular seems to be more interested in doing this than trying to score these days. Purposely throwing your leg into someone's path instead of into a natural position just so you can throw yourself to the floor isn't a foul imo.

 

[noodlehair]

See the reply to you above the referee explaining it with video's. Player clearly offside, defender tries to deliberately play it, doesn't control it properly, leads to goal. Exactly what happened today.

But the goal in that video is just obviously the wrong decision isn't it? I mean to anyone with common sense, and in 99.99% of cases the flag would go up.

I'm sure you'd be perfectly happy if a goal like that caused City to lose a game, because there was some obscure incident on the other side of the world months earlier that got interpreted similarly, vs the thousands of times it gets deemed offside.

 

[Bubz27]

Would you say the actions of the offside players here effected the defenders decision making...
https://www.dutchreferee.com/no-offside-because-of-deliberate-play/

I'm not trying to be a dick by the way and I agree to disagree, just curious.

That Hamilton one, absolutely affected the defenders decision making in my opinion. If the red shirt guy isn't there, he just let's that go out for a goal kick. So just by being there, the defender tries to play the ball but cocks it up and actually makes it easier for offside boy to control.

The second one, Mexican league one, is tricker because it just hits the defender and rebounds to their player who taps it in. Defender isn't trying to stop it going to the offside player, he's trying to stop it going to an onside player. So the inside player affects the defender, which is perfectly natural.

 

[Withnail]

You could use google but here it is.

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent deliberately playing the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

It's ridiculous because in most of those replays the defender is only playing the ball to stop if from going to the offside attacker. If he's not offside the defender doesn't attempt the intercept.

 

[city-puma]

Why isn't there a lot of noise about the Fred penalty in the aftermath? Is it because controversial VAR decisions never gets discussed when United is involved? No. Usually they get major headlines. So why? When will the media point out the hypocrisy by Klopp who has Mané and Salah diving as a tactic and has gotten an incredible amount of soft penalties and has conspired with actual Liverpool supporters to misuse their powers because they are working on tv as pundits, so they get to put pressure on the referees to give them penalties and deny United clear goals and penalties. It's beyond unfair, it's corruption and if those comments didn't get investigated - then they need to investigate the comments and the refs now, after evidence of clear misuse of VAR to not correct clear and obvious decisions in favour of Liverpool in the chase for the title.

It’s criminal and the same for the vila’s first conceded today.

 

[Utd heap]

Because he chucked himelf on the floor as if he'd been hit by a train when it wasn't even really a foul!

I wouldn't have been happy at all if we had a penalty given against us for that. Our players need to stop doing this as well. We sometimes mess up 2-3 promising attacks a game trying by trying to cheat cheap penalties out of the ref. Martial in particular seems to be more interested in doing this than trying to score these days. Purposely throwing your leg into someone's path instead of into a natural position just so you can throw yourself to the floor isn't a foul imo.

Spot on. .

I cant stand VAR but thank feck they don't give these as much as they used to.

 

[Listar]

Yes it does, chesting the ball is clearly and deliberately playing the ball. Mings clearly chested the ball (played it), before Rodri tackled. Nowhere in the rules does it say you haven't played the ball because you fecked up have 5 more touches to sort your feet out. It says first contact or something, as long as thats deliberate, onside.

If you win the league this season you have to say the refs help you lot to it.

 

[Bubz27]

It's not. The rule deliberately requires direct interfence, not passive interference. It requires an obvious action. Being somewhat close to a defender does not constitue an obvious action

Running towards the player with the ball is an obvious action.