The Ref Stop

Everton

  • Thread starter Thread starter JH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Answer me this then, how can a player sitting on the floor block the view of a 6'4" keeper? OK he is bent down a bit, but the camera angles conclusively showed there was no way he was blocking his view. Yes, he was in his eyesight, but that doesn't make it an offence.

De Gea dives as the shot came in and had full sight of the ball. Once Maguire deflects the shot there is not a keeper in the World that could have saved it once they had gone the wrong way, and Sigurdsson's position played no part in him not being able to save the shot. I can see the part of the offside law that people might say means it could be disallowed, as below, but the bit in bold simply is not met in this case.

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

There's a definite action, but it is impossible that this action impacted De Gea's ability to play the ball.
The deflection is 100% in line with Sigurdsson's head.
0675f1e9eed2d19e563ec88b234a6a87.jpg


To me there is not a full sight line, because of the offside player, thus he is involved in play.
Answer me this then, how can a player sitting on the floor block the view of a 6'4" keeper? OK he is bent down a bit, but the camera angles conclusively showed there was no way he was blocking his view.
I've just performed a very basic science experiment at work. I am 185cm, roughly the same size as Sigurdsson(186). When sat on the floor I am 1.05m high. A football goal is 2.44m (8ft) high, De Gea (192cm) is bent down and looks to be just over halfway up the post. That makes him stood at a height of roughly 4.5-5ft.

Where is the camera angle that shows that he is in no way blocking the view?
 
The Ref Stop
It looked fairly civil to me and then Kavanagh reacts pretty quickly to go to his back pocket so I would guess something pretty bad has been said.
I don't think so, looks like Kavanagh warns Ancelotti to leave and you can hear Ancelotti saying "I'm staying here", then he reaches for the red.
 
As an aside. The Red card for Ancelotti seemed pretty weak. Looked like he just demanded an explanation.
Klopp and Pep will scream in refs' faces next week without sanction
It seems crazy that Klopp, Pep and Jose can react as they do on the touchline and they are never sanctioned. Yet because it is full-time, Ancelotti is sent off for 'confronting' the match officials. Pep was much worse in the game against Liverpool and Jose sprinted towards Graham Scott recently on the touchline to scream in his face.
 
I don't think so, looks like Kavanagh warns Ancelotti to leave and you can hear Ancelotti saying "I'm staying here", then he reaches for the red.
How's that a red card offence though? Very rash decision from Kavanagh in my opinion. Yellow for dissent, fair enough, and then if it persisted a second yellow.
 
How's that a red card offence though? Very rash decision from Kavanagh in my opinion. Yellow for dissent, fair enough, and then if it persisted a second yellow.


See posts # 8 & 10. ;)
 
It seems crazy that Klopp, Pep and Jose can react as they do on the touchline and they are never sanctioned. Yet because it is full-time, Ancelotti is sent off for 'confronting' the match officials. Pep was much worse in the game against Liverpool and Jose sprinted towards Graham Scott recently on the touchline to scream in his face.
Maybe it’s because they’re off the pitch. I’m not saying they’re right for doing all their antics - but do the Laws not talk about “entering the pitch”?
 
Where is the camera angle that shows that he is in no way blocking the view?
You said it! Without that camera angle Sigi isn't "clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision (law 11)".

It's a bit like innocent until proven guilty; Sigi isn't obstructing De Gea's line of vision unless he clearly is.
 
How's that a red card offence though? Very rash decision from Kavanagh in my opinion. Yellow for dissent, fair enough, and then if it persisted a second yellow.
Confronting the match officials at half-time or full-time by a team official is a red card offence. Once you have decided they are confronting you, you have no scope to give a caution.
 
You said it! Without that camera angle Sigi isn't "clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision (law 11)".

It's a bit like innocent until proven guilty; Sigi isn't obstructing De Gea's line of vision unless he clearly is.
Nope sorry, too close to De Gea to have innocent until proven guilty defence.

He is within touching distance. He is clearly within a direct line of sight. Without further proof that he wasn't blocking the view of the ball due to height, there is enough evidence for me that he is interfering with an opponent.
 
It is strange though that the so called lesser teams seem to have suffered more... I'm sure there is no plan for this but it strange that the bigger teams seem to be luckier!!!

Because they have more attacks and more of the ball and therefore by definition they will be involved in more incidents in the opponent's penalty area. Whereas if the lower team spends little to no time in the opponent's penalty area they are highly unlikely to be involved in a debatable penalty decision. Doesn't mean that the percentage of decisions given is higher, just that 20% of 100 is a bigger number than 20% of 10.
 
Confronting the match officials at half-time or full-time by a team official is a red card offence. Once you have decided they are confronting you, you have no scope to give a caution.

To take this one step farther, any instance of a team official entering the field of play to confront a match official is a sending off. There is a lot in the Laws that is ambiguous, but this one is as clearly written as possible in Law 12. As others have said, it looks like Kavanagh did try to give Ancelotti a chance to leave. When he didn't, Kavanagh showed the red card.

I realize that supplemental penalties for red cards are codified in local rules of competition, but I was a little surprised that Ancelotti didn't receive a touchline ban similar to how a player who is sent off automatically misses the next match. Given that I've seen competitions like the CONCACAF Gold Cup (North and Central America's version of the European Championships) use the same rules for caution accumulation for both coaches and players, it was just odd to see that a one-game touchline ban wasn't an automatic punishment for the send-off. By all accounts, it seems like Ancelotti didn't go completely mad and that Kavanagh didn't report any excessive behavior.
 
He CK looked like a rabbit in headlights, like he knew he’d dropped one. The RC seemed to be a nervous response to go away!
 
He CK looked like a rabbit in headlights, like he knew he’d dropped one. The RC seemed to be a nervous response to go away!

No way.

Even if he did look like a "rabbit in the headlights" he was totally in control and did everything spot on for me.

He was stood in the centre of a largely hostile Goodison Park, with Ancelotti gobbing off at him 12 inches from his face, all being filmed by the TV cameras from less than 2 yards away. How do you think your face would have looked Yorkshire? :p The red card, as already demonstrated was simply a correct AOL.
 
No way.

Even if he did look like a "rabbit in the headlights" he was totally in control and did everything spot on for me.

He was stood in the centre of a largely hostile Goodison Park, with Ancelotti gobbing off at him 12 inches from his face, all being filmed by the TV cameras from less than 2 yards away. How do you think your face would have looked Yorkshire? :p The red card, as already demonstrated was simply a correct AOL.
Spot on
 
• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

That can be the only justifications, surely. Not line of sight.


We just had a classroom session all day today (!) looking at this and similar.

We discussed how you can decide if an action is "obvious" enough and the biggest factor was proximity. We looked at all kinds of situations where attackers came from offside positions and came close to defenders as e.g. they were about to play the ball. We looked at the UEFA clips and others.

In this case, Sigi makes an obvious action that is right next to the ball, he couldn't get much closer without touching it. So, I think, based on what we looked at today, the offside is justified.

However, my feeling here is that, there was no way De Gea was saving this, and it is the deflection that has sent him the wrong way - obviously, rather than Sigi - so the decision seems incredibly harsh. But we can't see inside De Gea's mind. So, I accept the offside.

Nobody is questioning whether Sigurdsson makes an "obvious action;" the question is whether his obvious action prevents his opponent from playing the ball. My answer is that it does not prevent him from playing the ball in any possible way.
 
I apologize. I'm not even at the interference part of this.....can someone explain why this was an offside offense even though the defender played the ball? Doesn't the defender playing the ball negate offside?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top