A&H

WBA MANU

The whole decision making was a mess here. Was it a clear foul? No. Was it clearly not a foul? No again for me. A bit of tug on the shoulder, a bit of pull on the waist. A bit of leg tangle... Nothing clear and obvious there either way so original decision should have stood.

On offside, there was no interference with play . Possibly interfere with opponent by impacting his ability to play the ball. But because referee stopped play for foul, that offence (interfere with opponent) never occured and can't be considered on review.

Assuming the foul/no foul was not clear either way, we are in a bit of a pickle. Had referee not stopped play, it would have been offside but because he did stop play (and offside never occured) VAR can only judge/review the foul. A big mess. One that I don't think VAR protocol accounts for.
 
The Referee Store
one said:
The whole decision making was a mess here. Was it a clear foul? No. Was it clearly not a foul? No again for me. A bit of tug on the shoulder, a bit of pull on the waist. A bit of leg tangle... Nothing clear and obvious there either way so original decision should have stood.

On offside, there was no interference with play . Possibly interfere with opponent by impacting his ability to play the ball. But because referee stopped play for foul, that offence (interfere with opponent) never occured and can't be considered on review.

Assuming the foul/no foul was not clear either way, we are in a bit of a pickle. Had referee not stopped play, it would have been offside but because he did stop play (and offside never occured) VAR can only judge/review the foul. A big mess. One that I don't think VAR protocol accounts for.
Click to expand...
There was a big delay between the foul being awarded and it 'supposedly' happening. I think the ball had gone out of play so blowing didn't prevent anything playing out as it should. To me it seems entirely possible thats what the delay was about and the officials were incredibly switched on to the law 11/12 situation. Kudos, if so.
I think I have mentioned before, pulling comes in the category of holding affences or at least this is my interpretation given that pulling is not listed as a DFK offence, it is only mentioned in dogso. This is likely poor law writing again, but pulling is easily covered by holding. I can't think of anything you can pull without first holding (mind out the gutter folks).
If you look at the holding definition I don't think we can classify this as a holding offence. Maguires movement is not impeded by the 'holding'
There is no contact on the legs.
For me it is clearly and obviously not a foul. If I were a WBA fan and the game was lost on that penalty award I would be very very unhappy with no intervention from VAR. In fact, I am more than happy with the process on this occasion. But, appreciate it is subjective and we come. Full circle to what is clear and obvious when there are 2 refs each with a difference in what that looks like
 
  • Haha
Reactions: es1
JamesL said:
There was a big delay between the foul being awarded and it 'supposedly' happening. I think the ball had gone out of play so blowing didn't prevent anything playing out as it should. To me it seems entirely possible thats what the delay was about and the officials were incredibly switched on to the law 11/12 situation. Kudos, if so.
I think I have mentioned before, pulling comes in the category of holding affences or at least this is my interpretation given that pulling is not listed as a DFK offence, it is only mentioned in dogso. This is likely poor law writing again, but pulling is easily covered by holding. I can't think of anything you can pull without first holding (mind out the gutter folks).
If you look at the holding definition I don't think we can classify this as a holding offence. Maguires movement is not impeded by the 'holding'
There is no contact on the legs.
For me it is clearly and obviously not a foul. If I were a WBA fan and the game was lost on that penalty award I would be very very unhappy with no intervention from VAR. In fact, I am more than happy with the process on this occasion. But, appreciate it is subjective and we come. Full circle to what is clear and obvious when there are 2 refs each with a difference in what that looks like
Click to expand...
I checked the replay numerous times. The ball was moving almost prallel to the goal line just inside (due to the curve on the cross) when play was stopped. Hence the dropped ball restart.

Call it pulling or holding but penalties have been given for less without review.

I think the right decision was made at the end but through a very wrong process. One which I don't like at all and don't want it to creep into the game, re-refereeing the game that is.
 
one said:
I checked the replay numerous times. The ball was moving almost prallel to the goal line just inside (due to the curve on the cross) when play was stopped. Hence the dropped ball restart.

Call it pulling or holding but penalties have been given for less without review.

I think the right decision was made at the end but through a very wrong process. One which I don't like at all and don't want it to creep into the game, re-refereeing the game that is.
Click to expand...
Ah so the ball hadn't gone out, either way I still think it had been allowed to play out as it would have done anyway and perhaps he has forced a review by blowing. This is one which perhaps doesnt get reviewed on a no foul call but does forces a review by awarding a penalty. Who knows.
I still sit on this is a C&O error that should have been reviewed.
I think sometimes it depends on what the referee says to VAR maybe? Our RDO (FL ref) mentioned last week that referees on var are having to relay what they have seen to the VAR so if CP says tangle of legs, that was wrong, where as if he said holding he's probably not clearly and obviously wrong...
I think as a football fan this really is one area that can be improved where decision making processes are much clearer. Whether that is we get the comms, or we get an official PGMOL outcome and not an ex refs opinion.. An actual in the know I think the world would be much more accepting.
Looking at other sports that use video referees, rugby, cricket, the dialogue is there, everyone understands even if they don't agree.
 
It's been an interesting incident on reflection
There are many contributors on this forum that have superior knowledge of the Laws than all of these Media Refs
So technically, I think it's fair to say that this was not offside. However, I'm flagging or wanting a flag, because there's nothing worse than being the only attendee to have 'superior knowledge' based on wording that can't account for the particulars of every possible scenario. Sometimes common sense or as per the philosophy below;

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”

I know the bit about chronology, foul (or no foul, whatever) then offside etc.
But that wouldn't deter me in this exact scenario. Flag up, no fuss, game harmony undisturbed
 
Last edited:
Big Cat said:
It's been an interesting incident on reflection
There are many contributors on this forum that have superior knowledge of the Laws than all of these Media Refs
So technically, I think it's fair to say that this was not offside. However, I'm flagging or wanting a flag, because there's nothing worse than being the only attendee to have 'superior knowledge' based on wording that can't account for the particulars of every possible scenario. Sometimes common sense or as per the philosophy below;

The Laws cannot deal with every possible situation, so where there is no direct provision in the Laws, The IFAB expects the referee to make a decision within the ‘spirit’ of the game – this often involves asking the question, “what would football want/expect?”
Click to expand...
Totally agree. I'd expect a flag. And I'd penalise offside in my game. And I don't think anyone would realise or complain truth be told.
Final points and to be truthful going over very very old ground.
This is a law change that a) hasnt really been tested yet b) feels like it was put in to fix a problem that really didn't exist.
And also highlights the problem when you try to give new meaning to words to suit a purpose in law.
For example, everyday sense of the English language is Maguire seeking to gain an advantage? Is he interfering with play? Yes, he absolutely is.
But when you look at the meaning the laws give for these phrases he isn't. And then we wonder how people get so muddled up with the laws meaning and intent.
 
It's an interesting parallel to the incident that injured Van Dijk earlier in the season - in that case, the offside was scrutinised in such detail, they forgot to check if a red card offence may have occurred. Adds fuel to the theory that any technological assistance we give referees will still have a fleshy weak link in the process!
 
Technology is rarely the weakest link, the people using it usually have that honour.

As I have said before ....

... PICNIC :)

Although, if it is true PGMOL have said that then they appear to be throwing Mason to the wolves, especially as law specifically states it should not be offside. I think morally it should be offside, but difficult to criticise someone when they have applied law correctly as it is written.
 
I'd like to view the info without the journalist spin on it ie does it actually say forgot
 
Whoever it was from PGMOL who told him that was wrong in law. Kind of sums up the whole shambles really, doesn't it?
 
Alex Rush-Fear said:
Whoever it was from PGMOL who told him that was wrong in law. Kind of sums up the whole shambles really, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
It does, but then reffing was more of an art than a science... before VAR gate-crashed the party...
I'm very much of a mind that they'll have to forget the notion of one set of LOTG
 
It really does seem that many of us now disagree with specific parts of the LOTG, particularly relating to offside; EVEN when the LOTG have clear paragraphs such as this one where a player in an offside position is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, you penalise the foul.

I’ve seen this blatant ignoring of the laws come up repeatedly, where members on here say ‘oh football doesn’t expect that so I’ll resort to the part of the law that talks about what football expects’.

All of you in that boat seem to conveniently forget that that part of the law is to cover things that aren’t covered in the rest of the LOTG, and is not a fallback for when you personally disagree with the laws yourself.

In this case, if Maguire had actually been fouled, it would’ve been a penalty as he was fouled BEFORE playing or attempting to play the ball. We might not like it, but it doesn’t mean we can choose not to apply something which is very clearly written into the laws as they currently stand.
 
Tonydent said:
It really does seem that many of us now disagree with specific parts of the LOTG, particularly relating to offside; EVEN when the LOTG have clear paragraphs such as this one where a player in an offside position is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, you penalise the foul.

I’ve seen this blatant ignoring of the laws come up repeatedly, where members on here say ‘oh football doesn’t expect that so I’ll resort to the part of the law that talks about what football expects’.

All of you in that boat seem to conveniently forget that that part of the law is to cover things that aren’t covered in the rest of the LOTG, and is not a fallback for when you personally disagree with the laws yourself.

In this case, if Maguire had actually been fouled, it would’ve been a penalty as he was fouled BEFORE playing or attempting to play the ball. We might not like it, but it doesn’t mean we can choose not to apply something which is very clearly written into the laws as they currently stand.
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time understanding how a player running to where the ball is going to land isn't attempting to play the ball. If he's not running to that spot because he's expecting to put the ball on target or make some other play, what exactly is he doing then?
 
Tonydent said:
It really does seem that many of us now disagree with specific parts of the LOTG, particularly relating to offside; EVEN when the LOTG have clear paragraphs such as this one where a player in an offside position is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, you penalise the foul.

I’ve seen this blatant ignoring of the laws come up repeatedly, where members on here say ‘oh football doesn’t expect that so I’ll resort to the part of the law that talks about what football expects’.

All of you in that boat seem to conveniently forget that that part of the law is to cover things that aren’t covered in the rest of the LOTG, and is not a fallback for when you personally disagree with the laws yourself.

In this case, if Maguire had actually been fouled, it would’ve been a penalty as he was fouled BEFORE playing or attempting to play the ball. We might not like it, but it doesn’t mean we can choose not to apply something which is very clearly written into the laws as they currently stand.
Click to expand...
Yet we all ignore many aspects of the Law routinely. I've indicated that Laws with microscopic detail are arguably needed for VAR, but for the rest us (me), they're a framework (which I must have sound understanding of) around which I manage my games to an equitable and safe outcome
 
RefIADad said:
I'm having a hard time understanding how a player running to where the ball is going to land isn't attempting to play the ball. If he's not running to that spot because he's expecting to put the ball on target or make some other play, what exactly is he doing then?
Click to expand...
If the ball isn’t nearby when the ‘offside’ attacking player is fouled then he/she can’t be penalised for the offside, abs the foul must be awarded.
 

Attachments

  • C688024D-3135-4AB7-BA09-DFBBEB7C88C4.jpeg
    C688024D-3135-4AB7-BA09-DFBBEB7C88C4.jpeg
    848.4 KB · Views: 6
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top