A&H

Norwich v Leicester

The Referee Store
Offside for me, not because of preventing the gk making a save, but, he is clearly in his line of vision.

of course not even sure without sqiggly lines if he is even off, working on basis that he is offside, then am disallowing it for being in line of vision

I would be more interested to see if position wise he was even offside....
 
Really? He's deliberately trying to block the GKs vision on the play. I don't think on something that blatant we really want to analyze shot quality and hypothesize about the GK's chances. This is a completely knucklehead play by the attacker.

But are we even sure it was OS and not impeding without contact? The attacker moved with the GK to block his movement as the cross came in before the shot was taken. That was also an IFK offense.
 
socal lurker said:
Really? He's deliberately trying to block the GKs vision on the play. I don't think on something that blatant we really want to analyze shot quality and hypothesize about the GK's chances. This is a completely knucklehead play by the attacker.

But are we even sure it was OS and not impeding without contact? The attacker moved with the GK to block his movement as the cross came in before the shot was taken. That was also an IFK offense.
Click to expand...
I don't think Schmeichel's view of the ball was blocked, nor do I think the GK's movement was impeded. It's extremely common to have players very close to the GK when a CK is scored

The fact the GK had absolutely no chance of saving the header is unfortunately irrelevant, which makes the decision unfair. Again, irrelevant I know
Anyway, I'm not having and I don't think a 'light touch VAR' has any place getting involved
 
Big Cat said:
I don't think Schmeichel's view of the ball was blocked,
Click to expand...
We are not going too well today on agreeing on points.

At the time of the header they zoomed in to show Schmeichel trying to jump over the attacker's head to be able to see. That's a blocked view for me. But in general, if the possible view blocking happens in movement to challenge for the ball or position, I might give the benefit of doubt to attacking team. But if the attacker is doing this deliberately to block keeper's view or movement, which was the case here, they are not getting any benefit of doubt from me, for fairness or match control.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20210831-000746~2.jpg
    Screenshot_20210831-000746~2.jpg
    31.3 KB · Views: 14
Meant to add, granted I dont see the rest of his act and how far he came out, but, charging out waving hands about , Schmeical lis getting a yellow card for that reaction.
Also accepted in advance, dissent is handled differently by the elite ( ignored)
 
.
Anubis said:
Meant to add, granted I dont see the rest of his act and how far he came out, but, charging out waving hands about , Schmeical lis getting a yellow card for that reaction.
Also accepted in advance, dissent is handled differently by the elite ( ignored)
Click to expand...
Hmm.. Yes I get what you are saying but at the levels I ref at referees are telling me they only really want an offside like that flagging if the keeper is asking for it.
Its an appeal. At that point it's appealing rather than dissent or protest at match officials decision.
Also empathy for the game. 89th minute.. Conceding a goal that (imo) clear offside offence I can allow a little bit of emotion.
 
JamesL said:
they only really want an offside like that flagging if the keeper is asking for it.
Click to expand...
I really hate this mindset. While on one hand I get the idea that the GK is the one who really knows if he was impacted, it's the same kind of message we send to encourage flopping by not calling fouls if the attacker doesn't fall down. So, on one hand we have the @Anubis view that the GK should be cautioned for what he did, and on the other that the GK doesn't get the call unless he does what he did.
 
socal lurker said:
I really hate this mindset. While on one hand I get the idea that the GK is the one who really knows if he was impacted, it's the same kind of message we send to encourage flopping by not calling fouls if the attacker doesn't fall down. So, on one hand we have the @Anubis view that the GK should be cautioned for what he did, and on the other that the GK doesn't get the call unless he does what he did.
Click to expand...
Opens up an interesting debate. Do you never take player reaction into account when making decisions?

Just for clarity, this is NOT meant to imply criticism, genuinely interested.
 
PinnerPaul said:
Opens up an interesting debate. Do you never take player reaction into account when making decisions?

Just for clarity, this is NOT meant to imply criticism, genuinely interested.
Click to expand...
Don't give a PK in the absence of an appeal and you probably won't go too far wrong in life (without TV replays that is)
Not sure I buy into this statement 100% but I'm inclined that way. That said, I don't wanna be seen to only award PK's on the back of an appeal
Timing of the whistle is the tricky bit
 
PinnerPaul said:
Opens up an interesting debate. Do you never take player reaction into account when making decisions?

Just for clarity, this is NOT meant to imply criticism, genuinely interested.
Click to expand...
It would certainly be an overstatement to say never. But I also think there is a difference between watching for reactions and not doing without an actual appeal. Players aren't supposed to be appealing. I suppose level can also matter, too--at the professional level they appeal for almost everything, so I suppose the lack of an appeal means something. At lower levels it can mean the young player is polite and respecting the R or that the player doesn't know/understand that he was fouled. But the more we refuse to call without an appeal, the more we are encouraging players to appeal for everything and to do so in a highly visible way that no one can miss. That can make for a fine line between an appeal and dissent. And it can make us look like we are letting players call the game.
 
If a striker thinks he is fouled , nothing given, then runs to me the way Schmeical runs in the clip, its the easiest yellow card.
At the point of ball crossing line, its a goal, Schmeical is protesting that decision to award the goal, regardless of what ultimate call will follow
Yes I understand the emotion, the desire for his case to be heard, snarling, windmilling and chasing the referee, is not an acceptable manner to do it in
 
socal lurker said:
It would certainly be an overstatement to say never. But I also think there is a difference between watching for reactions and not doing without an actual appeal. Players aren't supposed to be appealing. I suppose level can also matter, too--at the professional level they appeal for almost everything, so I suppose the lack of an appeal means something. At lower levels it can mean the young player is polite and respecting the R or that the player doesn't know/understand that he was fouled. But the more we refuse to call without an appeal, the more we are encouraging players to appeal for everything and to do so in a highly visible way that no one can miss. That can make for a fine line between an appeal and dissent. And it can make us look like we are letting players call the game.
Click to expand...
It is true that an 'appeal' can be completely absent in kids footy
My reference was concerning big lads, not very nice ones. In which case it pays to go with whichever side shouts loudest
 
socal lurker said:
It would certainly be an overstatement to say never. But I also think there is a difference between watching for reactions and not doing without an actual appeal. Players aren't supposed to be appealing. I suppose level can also matter, too--at the professional level they appeal for almost everything, so I suppose the lack of an appeal means something. At lower levels it can mean the young player is polite and respecting the R or that the player doesn't know/understand that he was fouled. But the more we refuse to call without an appeal, the more we are encouraging players to appeal for everything and to do so in a highly visible way that no one can miss. That can make for a fine line between an appeal and dissent. And it can make us look like we are letting players call the game.
Click to expand...
Thanks - that's fair enough
 
Big Cat said:
The fact the GK had absolutely no chance of saving the header is unfortunately irrelevant, which makes the decision unfair. Again, irrelevant I know
Anyway, I'm not having and I don't think a 'light touch VAR' has any place getting involved
Click to expand...
The call by the on field AR / team was offside. So VAR was simply confirming that call.

I'm not with you on this one BC. The attacker's sole purpose in standing there is to distract / impede the keeper .. he's just made the mistake of doing so whilst in an offside position.

And whilst I would dearly love to see more dissent decisions in the EPL, for me this stays (just) on the side of a vigorous appeal rather than an unjustified rant
 
I guess you can argue if it should be offside in a philosophical sense (I think it should be), but it's 100% offside when using the FIFA and UEFA considerations and teaching for interfering with an opponent.
 
Russell Jones said:
The call by the on field AR / team was offside. So VAR was simply confirming that call.

I'm not with you on this one BC. The attacker's sole purpose in standing there is to distract / impede the keeper .. he's just made the mistake of doing so whilst in an offside position.

And whilst I would dearly love to see more dissent decisions in the EPL, for me this stays (just) on the side of a vigorous appeal rather than an unjustified rant
Click to expand...
Not the first time I've been friendless 😿
Guess I've been swept away by the 'unfairness' of the outcome
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top