WBA MANU

[santa sangria]

63 mins - it's obviously a penalty.

We are now in a bizarre place. The referee has seen it and doesn't give it. VAR recommends a review. Pitchside monitor.
Presumably because of what has happened to Dean, the referee wants to stick with his original decision.
If he had called penalty on the field, it obviously would stand.

3 minutes wasted. IMHO it's obviously a penalty.

Why can't they get this right? Because VAR is rubbish.

 

[Big Cat]

63 mins - it's obviously a penalty.

We are now in a bizarre place. The referee has seen it and doesn't give it. VAR recommends a review. Pitchside monitor.
Presumably because of what has happened to Dean, the referee wants to stick with his original decision.
If he had called penalty on the field, it obviously would stand.

3 minutes wasted. IMHO it's obviously a penalty.

Why can't they get this right? Because VAR is rubbish.

Very strange incident Santa (I say strange, but nothing surprises me, or should I say 'us')
It most definitely was not a C&O error because the legs may have tangled. That said, it was offside FGS!

 

[QuaverRef]

I don’t think it’s a penalty at all, there’s minimal contact and he’s thrown himself to the ground.

However, why was there no check for offside? Maguire wasn’t even close to be being on

 

[Big Cat]

I don’t think it’s a penalty at all, there’s minimal contact and he’s thrown himself to the ground.

However, why was there no check for offside? Maguire wasn’t even close to be being on

It might not have been a PK, but Pawson's on-field decision did not need re-refereeing (except that it was offside). Why was Martin Tyler and Gary Neville fully immediately aware of all of this when the R's were unaware!?

I can only assume, Moss thought Maguire had 'not yet challenged' for the ball and was therefore not offside. That would be an 'unsafe' interpretation of the Law IMO. Besides Maguire could be argued to have impeded his opponent. Either way, just give offside and 'move on'

 

[JamesL]

63 mins - it's obviously a penalty.

We are now in a bizarre place. The referee has seen it and doesn't give it. VAR recommends a review. Pitchside monitor.
Presumably because of what has happened to Dean, the referee wants to stick with his original decision.
If he had called penalty on the field, it obviously would stand.

3 minutes wasted. IMHO it's obviously a penalty.

Why can't they get this right? Because VAR is rubbish.

The referee awarded a penalty. The review was to overturn it and rightly so in my opinion.
1) it was offside
2) there was no foul.

Thought the 1st goal was more of a foul, hand in face preventing challenging for the ball?

 

[JamesL]

I can only assume, Moss thought Maguire had 'not yet challenged' for the ball and was therefore not offside. That would be an 'unsafe' interpretation of the Law IMO. Besides Maguire could be argued to have impeded his opponent. Either way, just give offside and 'move on'

Hadnt thought of that. Good point.

Thought it was clearly and obviously not a foul though so review correct imo.

 

[RefIADad]

The final objective was met (no ManU penalty), but wouldn't the order of operations be to check offside first (objective, black and white decision), then check the more subjective penalty call?

For me, it's not a C&O error to award that penalty. I personally thought it was a penalty, but the call on the field should have stood regardless of that call. However, Maguire was in an offside position and clearly impacting play. So if you start with the offside decision, you get to the final objective without having to deal with the more subjective call.

 

[JamesL]

The final objective was met (no ManU penalty), but wouldn't the order of operations be to check offside first (objective, black and white decision), then check the more subjective penalty call?

For me, it's not a C&O error to award that penalty. I personally thought it was a penalty, but the call on the field should have stood regardless of that call. However, Maguire was in an offside position and clearly impacting play. So if you start with the offside decision, you get to the final objective without having to deal with the more subjective call.

I think they were looking as if to say had not yet committed an offside offence so would be the subjective that needed to be resolved.
Think @Big Cat is bang on the money there. Whether football would accept that decision remains to be seen.

 

[Degnann]

Not a penalty for me. Never watched the game but Twitter has exploded because of when Pawson blows for half time. If you can’t blow the whistle when the attacking team are in their own half I’m not sure when you can

 

[RustyRef]

It isn't a penalty for me, there is an arm on the shoulder and he flings himself down. That said, there is a distinct lack of consistency as West Brom's scorer had his arm in Lindelof's face for their goal, and for me that was arguably more of an incorrect decision than the initially allowed penalty.

I just don't see how Maguire wasn't offside anyway. He was close enough to be deemed the be challenging for it, I don't think they looked at it and thought he was too far away as they seemingly immediately initiated the penalty check, there really was no time to have checked the offside.

 

[santa sangria]

Had no idea it was offside. Why was there even a check for the penalty? I am so confused!
TBH I started watching something else when the VAR nonsense started

 

[Big Cat]

Not a penalty for me. Never watched the game but Twitter has exploded because of when Pawson blows for half time. If you can’t blow the whistle when the attacking team are in their own half I’m not sure when you can

We've had a fair bit of conjecture recently about timing of HT/FT
In this case, given that they'd played 47'07 (2 added minutes) and the breakaway started deep in the defensive half, Pawson was perfectly justified in calling HT. From West Brom's perspective, why should Man U have been gifted the Promising Attack when time was up?

 

[JamesL]

Not a penalty for me. Never watched the game but Twitter has exploded because of when Pawson blows for half time. If you can’t blow the whistle when the attacking team are in their own half I’m not sure when you can

My only frustration was 2 mins but allowed 3 wba corners to be taken. He blows up before one of those corners it's a non event. Entirely avoidable situation. But, left himself no choice. Half was over.

 

[Yampy]

The referee awarded a penalty. The review was to overturn it and rightly so in my opinion.
1) it was offside
2) there was no foul.

Thought the 1st goal was more of a foul, hand in face preventing challenging for the ball?

At what point did Maguire commit an offside offence? Being in an offside position isn’t an offence in its own right.
I’d argue the first offence is the pull back, albeit it debatable in its own right. Any offside offence has yet to occur.

 

[QuaverRef]

At what point did Maguire commit an offside offence? Being in an offside position isn’t an offence in its own right.
I’d argue the first offence is the pull back, albeit it debatable in its own right. Any offside offence has yet to occur.

This is a bit of stretch, but by running across the defender he would be preventing the defender from playing the ball (though the ball wasn’t in playing distance)

that’s all I’ve got ...

 

[Big Cat]

At what point did Maguire commit an offside offence? Being in an offside position isn’t an offence in its own right.
I’d argue the first offence is the pull back, albeit it debatable in its own right. Any offside offence has yet to occur.

Technically, you're right, which is why I posted the likely thought process of Moss (in the hope they didn't merely fail to notice the possible offside) However, this thinking is not in the 'spirit of the law' and doesn't obeys any sort of common sense. I'd be giving offside all day every day

 

[Yampy]

This is a bit of stretch, but by running across the defender he would be preventing the defender from playing the ball (though the ball wasn’t in playing distance)

that’s all I’ve got ...

Read law 11, it even describes such an incident in the second bullet point.

In situations where:
• a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent), the offence should be penalised under Law 12
• a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
• an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

 

[JamesL]

At what point did Maguire commit an offside offence? Being in an offside position isn’t an offence in its own right.
I’d argue the first offence is the pull back, albeit it debatable in its own right. Any offside offence has yet to occur.

Yep. See further posts where I acknowledge this.

 

[Martiju]

And this is why I come here. I was confused about the lack of offside decision yesterday and found myself agreeing with Gary Neville! Having read through this, especially Yampy's post above, now makes it clear. Something to remember (and cause all levels of controversy about) next time I'm on the line, no doubt!

 

[JamesL]

And this is why I come here. I was confused about the lack of offside decision yesterday and found myself agreeing with Gary Neville! Having read through this, especially Yampy's post above, now makes it clear. Something to remember (and cause all levels of controversy about) next time I'm on the line, no doubt!

I wish there had been a foul now as I don't think enough has been made known about why the offside wasn't considered (I know it was but couldn't think of the right turn of phrase).
This is one where I don't think football will accept.
I can't think of a situation where this has happened since the law changed to include/clarify this scenario, but I think football, based on what I am reading online, would expect an offside here. Indeed, I myself wasnt clear until I came here and BC pointed it out... Even after the debacle of Dutch Referee Blog question last week