Interference with an opponent by challenging an opponent for the ball?
Or clearly attempting to play the ball. Both could count
VAR and Refs | General Discussion
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik and Imran are here to talk about a frustrating 2 points dropped at Crystal Palace. They then discuss the regeneration of Old Trafford. Finally, Nik is joined by special guest Michael Statham from the Football Oranje podcast - who gives us a more in depth look at our EL opposition FC Twente, and then runs through the (many) Dutch connections currently at United.
Or clearly attempting to play the ball. Both could count
This is a massive issue with VAR. Fans thought it’d bring consistency but that is not it’s intention, and it’s actually highlighted how inconsistent decisions are
Are you serious ?
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
- 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
No it doesn't.
McTominay gives it away so often
I'd argue the ball wasn't close enough for either of them to realistically get a touch so none of the above applied. That's likely where the 'subjective' part kicked in.
I'd also argue that if it's subjective or marginal, the goal should be allowed.
The ball isn’t there to be challenged for. That would apply if the he tackled a Fulham player who had the ball.
Huh? What matters then, in this scenario?
That doesn't matter, he doesn't need to be close enough.
Yes it does.
It passes them by while he's challenging for the ball which could have impacted the defenders ability to reach the ball. It's there to be overturned, as frustrating as it is
He didn't get near the ball and the opponent pushed him over. So try again.
Personally wouldn't have any issue if the same incident had happened in our area and Fulham scored from it.
He needs to have impacted the opponents ability to play the ball. He didn’t.
My god, there is rose tinted glasses and then there is this.
Watch it again with the rules infront of you and forget its the team you support.
The Fulham player doesn’t get it because the ball is too high. Maguire didn’t affect his ability to raise his foot.
Just if he could influence play, which covers a lot and it's not a good rule. So the fact that he affected what a defender could do, when that defender could do something basically means it's offside.
Other more extreme offsides have been given.
He could have reached the ball had Maguire not challenged him for it. Try again
You can't impact a players ability to play the ball if it's not close enough to actually play it.
Also who cares if you swing your leg at all a ball that's three feet away? How does that impact anything?
No. You were wrong, ref.
We'll never know because Maguire, who was offside, interfered with him
You’re arguing it’s black and white. It’s not, that’s why VAR sent the ref to screen to decide. He decided he impacted the defender. Plenty are arguing otherwise and with good reason.
But he didn’t. He doesn’t touch him, he doesn’t play the ball because it was too high for either player to get with their feet.
The idea that Maguire impacted the defender is laughable, the defender basically decides to foul Maguire and has zero chance of getting the ball regardless. It's absolute nonsense.
So any player in an offside position should be called offside because they might influence play? If that's actually the rule then I agree, it is a bad rule. It certainly isn't how the rule is usually applied, at the very least.
You have a very weird concept of the ground. If it wasn’t too high why did it sail over both players feet as they stretched for it? It’s past both players before it bounces.Too high?? He slides in with the ball on the ground
It’s not the rule.
Read the rules. There's no mention of dragging defenders into positions, influencing play or affecting what a defender can do.
There are very specific things you have to do to be deemed offside. I don't think any of them apply and it's clearly not black and white because it's been described as subjective and they even had to send the ref to the screen.
Fair enough. Maybe it's 1ft off the ground. Too high suggests like 8ft on the air though.
Yeah I know, just following along with that posters weird logic.
Both reached for it and missed. Because it was too high for them to reach.
Yet a player standing in front of a keeper and blocking their view does not matter, because the ball came from distance hahaha
It is though. The concept of var itself and how it interferes with the game is ridiculous no matter who looks at the silly little replays
You read the rules https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside
Clearly fits.
Which part? because you keep referring to things which aren't in there.
If VAR deemed Harry Maguire to have active and thus offside then surely the correct decision should have been penalty since Harry was being fouled and the foul offence occured before the offside offense.
Glad we finally agree.... the defender challenged Maguire when they both reach for it for it. Hence he becomes offside.
Glad we got there eventually.
I feel like offsides should only be given if the body part that's offside is the body part used to touch the ball.
Maguires shoulder is offside.
Maguires shoulder is offside.
Always the same posters arguing that borderline VAR decisions against us are always correct
We've all read the rules. Some people, myself included, don't think what Maguire did violates those rules. They're calling it a "subjective offside" for a reason.