A&H

WOL Vs WHU

The Referee Store
cwyeary said:
TBF I'd hope most of us on here would also be considered in the know when it comes to the Laws of the Game! :D
Click to expand...

Started typing about a referee twitter account giving poor information, and then gave up. Mistakenly pressed post
 
I’m curious if there has been an instruction to refs to err on the side of OS ehe. The GK’s being messed with because they don’t want it happening. When a player is deliberately trying to interfere with the GK, I don’t have a lot of sympathy when he wants to claim that he didn’t actually succeed.
 
Tealeaf said:
The stills are rubbish for this. The Wolves player clearly walks backwards into Fabianski forcing him to step back as the cross comes in.

That is clearly impacting his ability to make a save - he’s prevented from moving toward the ball.
Click to expand...
But it can’t be OS if it happens while the CK is coming in rather than after it is shot. Would have to be evaluated as impeding.
 
Pembroke said:

The views of Dublin and Lineker. It is worrying that these people have influence.
Click to expand...
So his idea to fix what he’s cited as a problem with the wording of the law, is to have an appeal system whereby referees will check for a second time something they’ve already checked. Tell me Gary, does the appeal allow them to reword the law as I’m not sure how that fixes you concerns …
 
QuaverRef said:
So his idea to fix what he’s cited as a problem with the wording of the law, is to have an appeal system whereby referees will check for a second time something they’ve already checked. Tell me Gary, does the appeal allow them to reword the law as I’m not sure how that fixes you concerns …
Click to expand...
I thought he meant the use of VAR. So they don’t use VAR at all unless an appeal goes in. Like they do in cricket.
 
I find it hard to believe this has caused the furore that it has. He is virtually stood right on top of Fabianski. Even if Fabianski can still just about see what is going on, you can not tell me that he is not interfering with an opponent. GO said Fabianski can clearly see over the players head. Really? That's expected to not be affecting the goalkeeper?
I had to actually laugh out loud when a wolves fan phoned in to talksport and said 'there's 22 players on that field that know the rules better than anyone and they didn't think it was offside'.
 
RefereeX said:
I find it hard to believe this has caused the furore that it has. He is virtually stood right on top of Fabianski. Even if Fabianski can still just about see what is going on, you can not tell me that he is not interfering with an opponent. GO said Fabianski can clearly see over the players head. Really? That's expected to not be affecting the goalkeeper?
'.
Click to expand...

The keeper could dropped to his knees to peer between opponents knees. In motd land this is not affecting the keeper!!
 
The Gump said:
I'm getting really fed up with the MOTD pundits and their ilk. even when they put the rules up they still don't understand them. For me, the Wolves player is clearly obstructing Fabianski's line of sight. Is there a debate as to whether it prevented Fabianski from playing the ball? Yes, there's a debate, but he was less than a yard away, and I'd imagine this would be given at lots of different levels. It isn't the awful decision so many are claiming, and I'd be amazed if the review group doesn't subsequently come out and support the decision.

They should really start throwing the book at O'Neil for his post-match comments.
Click to expand...
Lineker even stated “it’s a rule bought in by referees at IFAB who have taken over our game”.

Unless Im mistaken IFAB is not a referees body but an independent body made up of FA representatives, with contributions from the likes of Colina & Wenger.
 
JamesL said:
Personally I don't understand why this is causing the debate that it is.
Click to expand...
Partly because of all of the decisions against Wolves early in the season which actually were wrong. I am a Wolves fan but that opinion is consensus from my understanding. I'm going to refrain from sharing my full view on this decision as it isn't a fan forum and I don't want a ban (also because it isn't from my refereeing perspective so is completely wrong). But that implies what my view is ;).
 
Gabriel said:
Partly because of all of the decisions against Wolves early in the season which actually were wrong. I am a Wolves fan but that opinion is consensus from my understanding. I'm going to refrain from sharing my full view on this decision as it isn't a fan forum and I don't want a ban. But that implies what my view is ;).
Click to expand...
Apples and oranges can't be compared.
It's quite easy to take your fan hat off... Plenty of us on here are able to objectively look at decisions.

What do you think the correct decision here should be and why? You should be able to answer that without the amber specs, surely?
 
JamesL said:
Apples and oranges can't be compared.
It's quite easy to take your fan hat off... Plenty of us on here are able to objectively look at decisions.

What do you think the correct decision here should be and why? You should be able to answer that without the amber specs, surely?
Click to expand...
From a non-biased refereeing viewpoint, I'd need a few minutes at the monitor to convince myself it is offside. But being a passionate wolves fan I don't want to admit it. I say it would take some time to reach that conclusion because it is debateable whether Fabianski could have played the ball anyway. I personally don't think he had any chance, which would make it a goal, but you can't just go off probability so I can also see the argument for offside.
 
Gabriel said:
From a non-biased refereeing viewpoint, I'd need a few minutes at the monitor to convince myself it is offside. But being a passionate wolves fan I don't want to admit it. I say it would take some time to reach that conclusion because it is debateable whether Fabianski could have played the ball anyway. I personally don't think he had any chance, which would make it a goal, but you can't just go off probability so I can also see the argument for offside.
Click to expand...
I think the way I look at this is that the Wolves player that blocks off Fabianski's view/runs across his eyeline prevents him from being able to play the ball at all, even if it's the smallest possible chance, it is still a chance of him being able to play the ball. We're unable to come to the conclusion that he has 0% chance of being able to play the ball.

Do we think it's unlikely that he would make the save? Yes probably but unlikely doesn't mean that there isn't the smallest possible chance that he could've saved it. The laws are clear that if it affects an opponents ability to play at the ball, then he is offside. It's certainly not the "worst" decision that GO referred to it as and if anyone's to be blamed here, its the laws!!
 
Josh the referee said:
It's certainly not the "worst" decision that GO referred to it as and if anyone's to be blamed here, its the laws!!
Click to expand...
I certainly agree with this. The one at Manchester United in the 1st game was worse by a significant proportion. And in this case, it is 100% the wording of the laws that is allowing for such a ferocious debate.
 
RefereeX said:
But with this, I don't even think the law is wrong. I 100% think this should be an offside offence. The idea of the offside law is to stop this exact sort of thing. Don't want to be called offside? Don't stand that close to the goalkeeper...
Click to expand...
I agree that this should be offside in most cases. What I'm trying to get at is that it can be confusing as it is so rare, not helped by the fact the team involved are already so frustrated with a fair few poor/questionable decisions. It is very similar to the idea that I don't think I have ever seen someone get penalised for impeding an opponent without contact so if it did happen there would be controversy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top