A&H

Cup Final..

Sorry.....From the LOTG.. Playing and touching are completely different things.... see in the passage below (not relevant to this incident)

An attacker in an offside position (B) is penalised for playing or touching the ball that rebounds or is deflected from a deliberate save by a player from the defending team (C) having been in an offside position when the ball was last touched or is played by a team-mate.


I'm not saying he touched it, i'm saying he played it!!!! Completely different and mentioned in the laws earlier!!!
 
The Referee Store
Sheffields Finest said:
Sorry.....From the LOTG.. Playing and touching are completely different things.... see in the passage below (not relevant to this incident)

An attacker in an offside position (B) is penalised for playing or touching the ball that rebounds or is deflected from a deliberate save by a player from the defending team (C) having been in an offside position when the ball was last touched or is played by a team-mate.


I'm not saying he touched it, i'm saying he played it!!!! Completely different and mentioned in the laws earlier!!!
Click to expand...
But by the lotgs very definition of played there must be contact with the ball.

Played
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball.

A touch could be accidental which is why I think the 2 are in that passage
 
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
He doesn't clearly attempt to play the ball. He stops short of that.

- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He moves very close to the ball, within playing distance, in a strong shooting position, and this affects Courtois, no doubt for me. It is an "obvious action" that affects the GK. It's offside for me.

I can't find a camera angle that shows handball. If the ball did touch his hands, the un-natural position of his hands would lead me to suspect a handball offence.

For me no goal. Thank the lord Arsenal still won.

In all this it is a terrible flag from the AR. Wait and see! Not! And then he puts his flag down. And then up-down again to show it was rejected. It looked bad, really bad.

The Moses incident, excellent. Not picking up the foul before the Chelsea goal, also bad.

I love and respect our colleagues but I think these two goals look like ****-ups :(
 
santa sangria said:
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
He doesn't clearly attempt to play the ball. He stops short of that.

- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
He moves very close to the ball, within playing distance, in a strong shooting position, and this affects Courtois, no doubt for me. It is an "obvious action" that affects the GK. It's offside for me.

I can't find a camera angle that shows handball. If the ball did touch his hands, the un-natural position of his hands would lead me to suspect a handball offence.

For me no goal. Thank the lord Arsenal still won.

In all this it is a terrible flag from the AR. Wait and see! Not! And then he puts his flag down. And then up-down again to show it was rejected. It looked bad, really bad.

The Moses incident, excellent. Not picking up the foul before the Chelsea goal, also bad.

I love and respect our colleagues but I think these two goals look like ****-ups :(
Click to expand...

Hallelujah, the voice of reason!! SS :smoke::smoke::smoke:
 
santa sangria said:
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
In all this it is a terrible flag from the AR. Wait and see! Not! And then he puts his flag down. And then up-down again to show it was rejected. It looked bad, really bad.
Click to expand...

Whatever you think about the onside/offside interference argument, it certainly isn't a "terrible flag".

The assistant referee sees a player stood in an offside position when the ball is played, and is unsure as to whether the player is active, and therefore raises his flag to indicate the player is in an offside position. The referee then makes the decision as to whether the player is active or not. The flag goes back down once the referee has seen it, as the decision on whether to penalise the player for offside has not yet been made. Textbook assisting.

Sheffields Finest said:
Dont worry Pal, they all come around to my way of thinking in the end!!!
Click to expand...

In my case, they certainly don't.
 
forest96 said:
Textbook assisting.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. There is no risk of collision with the GK. There was no wait and see. The flag was way too early.
Difficult moment for sure. But IMHO the correct here for the AR is to wait and see and then stand instead of run when the ball is in the net.
If the mics are working well then the ref can shout "not active, goal" and the AR can do the goal run. Or if unsure, or the mics are bad, the ref can pause and come and talk to the still-standing AR.

The look from Arsene at the AR says it was a terrible flag much better than I can;)
 
Padfoot said:
Hark at the newbies suddenly becoming experts!

Yes, KMD will cost you, but also your overall performance will cost you.....the observer will pick out KMD, but don't ever think that your marks across the board won't suffer as a result of an overall feeling of a poor performance. There are always things that can be used to drop marks in other areas to justify an overall mark that reflects the observers "gut" feeling about a game.
Anyone that tells you different is either naive or a liar.

And let's not forget Costa's temper tantrum that should have been cautioned for dissent. And perfectly iilustrates why it will never improve at grassroots level, and why the sin bin experiment is an utter waste of time.
Click to expand...
I don't believe I'm an expert just expressing my interpretation which I still believe in. Although I do agree Costa should have received a caution for his blatant dissent.
 
santa sangria said:
I strongly disagree. There is no risk of collision with the GK. There was no wait and see. The flag was way too early.
Difficult moment for sure. But IMHO the correct here for the AR is to wait and see and then stand instead of run when the ball is in the net.
If the mics are working well then the ref can shout "not active, goal" and the AR can do the goal run. Or if unsure, or the mics are bad, the ref can pause and come and talk to the still-standing AR.

The look from Arsene at the AR says it was a terrible flag much better than I can;)
Click to expand...

For all we know, he has done the "wait and see", but from his perspective, 60 yards or so away on the line, he may be unsure exactly to what extent he is involved, and so raises the flag.
 
We were poor and off the pace pretty much from start to finish, no doubt best team on the day won! :(

Moses is an idiot of the highest order. Already been carded, blatant dive. Even more frustrating was the fact Fabregas was unmarked on the edge of the box. :mad:
 
100% offside for me. I don't see how Ramsey's movement and his final position of being within half a yard of the ball only to stop wouldn't be considered an impact on the goalkeeper.
 
Nuetral fan. Shouted handball before the goal. Offside/onside Ramseys position and actions can be debated till the cows come home. Costa yellow no doubt, missed the dive as was on childrens pick up but the radio seemed to be in agreement.
 
santa sangria said:
I strongly disagree. There is no risk of collision with the GK. There was no wait and see. The flag was way too early.
Difficult moment for sure. But IMHO the correct here for the AR is to wait and see and then stand instead of run when the ball is in the net.
If the mics are working well then the ref can shout "not active, goal" and the AR can do the goal run. Or if unsure, or the mics are bad, the ref can pause and come and talk to the still-standing AR.

The look from Arsene at the AR says it was a terrible flag much better than I can;)
Click to expand...


The mics are secondary. AR might have had doubt and seeking clarification, no issues with him discussing what he saw, not an excuse but its , what, 2 mins in, the referee team wont have settled into their own game by then so its vital to make sure everything is crystal.
 
QuaverRef said:
100% offside for me. I don't see how Ramsey's movement and his final position of being within half a yard of the ball only to stop wouldn't be considered an impact on the goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
That's irrelevant because he hasn't clearly attempted to play the ball (and if anyone can explain why the laws still distinguish between playing and touching the ball I'd be grateful - other than "playing" implying intent, they mean the same).

See Kasper Schmeichel's verdict on Silva's allowed goal a couple of weeks ago: "Sterling was offside on three counts". No, he may have done two of the three things in the new criteria, but you have to satisfy all three. Ramsey only did one - he got close to the ball. Just creating doubt in the keeper's mind isn't "clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball".
 
QuaverRef said:
100% offside for me. I don't see how Ramsey's movement and his final position of being within half a yard of the ball only to stop wouldn't be considered an impact on the goalkeeper.
Click to expand...
I'd strongly urge you to re-read the posts in this thread from senior refs such as Forest, James and Pierluigi. This is one of those situations where (whilst it may 'feel' like it should be offside) the LOTG are explicit that it is not ... and there is even a helpful diagram to show it! That said, even though I don't give many handballs, I'd have been tempted to give this one .. unnatural position of the arms and don't think he can claim a reflex self preservation excuse given that the arms were proactively raised before the ball was kicked
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top