City v Lyon

[bloovee]

I tend to agree with you. Don't know about the gesture.

There are two incidents here. Possible offside and tripping .

Offside is checked by VAR, there is no reason for the referee not to accept the VAR's recommendation off the bat.

The second one is the trip which is completely independent of the offside. It must also be checked by VAR. Assuming he noticed it, he then must determined it was a foul and then if it was a clear and obvious error by the referee before a review is done. I think one of those three conditions didn't go through. My guess is he saw it, thought it was a foul but don't think it was clear and obvious.

So "clear and obvious" to whom? The one person who didn't think it was clear and obvious with the benefit of replays? He noticed it because it said VAR was checking a possible foul.

 

[JamesL]

In contrast, a hold is a hold (in the latter category) and is always an offence.

Providing it meets the definition of a hold( I know you know this but for the avoidance of doubt)
A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body or
equipment impedes the opponent’s movement

 

[bloovee]

I'd put City in a similar bracket to PSG for the last three or four years - clearly a very good team and can produce excellent performances but they seem to struggle in many knockout stage CL games they'd be expected to win on paper and QF seems their current standard.

In terms of Makelle, I really like his style of refereeing in general. I thought he was probably not quite as good as the Liverpool V Atletico game that I last saw him but I think he'll go on to be one of the very best in Europe for a sustained period.

City were a tight offside, a missed penalty, and a wrong decision by the VAR from last season's semi-final. "VAR didn't have the angle that showed the handball goal." I don't think there's any great doubt, is there, that VAR decisions (or lack of them) have been a factor in City's not getting further in the CL?

For the record:

 

[one]

Providing it meets the definition of a hold( I know you know this but for the avoidance of doubt)
A holding offence occurs only when a player’s contact with an opponent’s body or
equipment impedes the opponent’s movement

Of course. The context of my post was different though. It was comparing it to offences which have to be CRUEF which hold doesn't have to be.

 

[bloovee]

More that happy to discuss your post #6. That is how "we referees" should discuss referee decisions



Defo no impact on the ability of any defender to play the ball. The defender was still able to play the ball if he made a different choice.

Impacting an apponent was put in law for goalkeepers being 'drawn' by an offside player close to playing the ball into the net (or other defender in a similar situation as a goalkeeper). Defender making a choice to chase an offside player have never been cause for an offside offence unless the offside player interferes with the defender. This is the accepted interpretation at all levels of football, fair or not.

As for the trip, if you read law 12, DFK's there are two categories. The ones which have to be careless, reckless or URF, and the ones without those conditions. Tripping offence is in the former. So while a trip is a trip, it's not always an offence. In contrast, a hold is a hold (in the latter category) and is always an offence.

Wow. Are you saying trips have to be intentional? What's a careful trip?

Can you actually kick or attempt to kick an opponent or even strike or attempt to strike an opponent carefully? They're in the same category.

 

[one]

So "clear and obvious" to whom? The one person who didn't think it was clear and obvious with the benefit of replays? He noticed it because it said VAR was checking a possible foul.

Simply explaining what I think happens. Not what saying it was right.

Do I think it was clear and obvious error? I have not see enough replayed but if there was clear contact initiated by Lyon player causing the trip the yes.

 

[one]

Wow. Are you saying trips have to be intentional? What's a careful trip?

Read law 12 mate, careless reckless or using excessive force. All those defined in law 12 as well.

I hope you are not deliberately misinterpreting my post.

Edit: once you find an answer for what a carful kick, strike ... Is you also find an answer for a careful trip.

 

[Kes]

Read law 12 mate, careless reckless or using excessive force. All those defined in law 12 as well.

I hope you are not deliberately misinterpreting my post.

Edit: once you find an answer for what a carful kick, strike ... Is you also find an answer for a careful trip.

I think City were hard done by. I only saw one slo mo of the alleged offside but my initial impression was that the ball grazed his heel as it went through his legs. Almost impossible to be sure but if I was Mr VAR, given the circumstances, the occasion and the time remaining, I'd be calling that.

Sterling must have slept well last night ...

 

[RustyRef]

A bit worrying that referees think that can possibly be offside. He didn't touch the ball, he didn't attempt to play the ball, and he can't have interfered with an opponent as there was no one near him. I just cannot be offside. Initially I thought he had touched the ball, in fact I was convinced he had, but replays showed he didn't.

For the trip, that is where the definition of clear and obvious becomes a bit of a mess. The attacker tripped the defender, difficult to tell in real time but he definitely tripped him. What we are essentially saying is that there was a foul, the officials knew there was a foul, but they didn't do anything about it and therefore a quarter final of the World's biggest club competition has been decided by an incorrect decision.

 

[onthebrink]

I think City were hard done by. I only saw one slo mo of the alleged offside but my initial impression was that the ball grazed his heel as it went through his legs. Almost impossible to be sure but if I was Mr VAR, given the circumstances, the occasion and the time remaining, I'd be calling that.

Sterling must have slept well last night ...

If you're not sure the offside player touched it then VAR shouldn't be giving it - you can't guess it might have just because of the time of the game.

I've not seen anything to suggest to me there was a touch.

 

[Ryanj91]

A nice drive and this has got nice and juicy.
Shows there are multiple opinions. Just a bit annoyed that I'm classed as a 'Man City fan' because I posted this. Just think they were hard done by again.

Thing about the offside which I'm trying to refer to is this: the player could have just stopped and let the play go on - which most players do (often put their hands up as well). He didn't, he continued his run, ran over the ball/let it go through his legs shimmy thing, which surely could be classed as playing the ball? That has directly impacted the defending.

The trip: the trip resulted in a player clear on goal.

I would assume the referee didn't see it, if he had he would have blown for it based on how much time Lyon players spent on the floor. Then I don't really know what VAR did? Seemed an obvious mistake in my eyes.

 

[RefIADad]

Absolutely no offside-there is not a defender in the vicinity who could be considered as being interfered with.

Regarding the potential foul, I saw it as two players coming together, but had it been called a foul it would not have been clear and obvious to overturn.

 

[JamesL]

A nice drive and this has got nice and juicy.
Shows there are multiple opinions. Just a bit annoyed that I'm classed as a 'Man City fan' because I posted this. Just think they were hard done by again.

Thing about the offside which I'm trying to refer to is this: the player could have just stopped and let the play go on - which most players do (often put their hands up as well). He didn't, he continued his run, ran over the ball/let it go through his legs shimmy thing, which surely could be classed as playing the ball? That has directly impacted the defending.

The trip: the trip resulted in a player clear on goal.

I would assume the referee didn't see it, if he had he would have blown for it based on how much time Lyon players spent on the floor. Then I don't really know what VAR did? Seemed an obvious mistake in my eyes.

Offside is not interfering with an opponent. It is interfering with an opponent by x y and z. If it was just interfering with opponent, I could accept your interpretation and argument. But unfortunately it doesnt.
The very definition of play in the lotg requires contact with the ball. No contact. No play. Period.

 

[one]

Just a bit annoyed that I'm classed as a 'Man City fan' because I posted this.

Haha Ryan. I never said you are a Man City fan. You misunderstood the it. I said it was a fan post. Big difference. Calling a decision dodgy or saying "a trip is a trip" is the type of thing you expect to read in fan forums not referee forums.

As I said your post #6 was different. You tried to justify what you think a decision should be using LOTG. Nothing 'fan'y there

 

[Degnann]

therefore a quarter final of the World's biggest club competition has been decided by an incorrect decision.

Not necessarily, Lyon scored after this of course. Did it have an impact, maybe, but don't think it decided it.

Thing about the offside which I'm trying to refer to is this: the player could have just stopped and let the play go on - which most players do (often put their hands up as well). He didn't, he continued his run, ran over the ball/let it go through his legs shimmy thing, which surely could be classed as playing the ball? That has directly impacted the defending.

Again it can't be classed as playing the ball as he hasn't touched it. Regardless of letting it run through his legs and again has had no impact on the defending.

 

[RefIADad]

A nice drive and this has got nice and juicy.
Shows there are multiple opinions. Just a bit annoyed that I'm classed as a 'Man City fan' because I posted this. Just think they were hard done by again.

Thing about the offside which I'm trying to refer to is this: the player could have just stopped and let the play go on - which most players do (often put their hands up as well). He didn't, he continued his run, ran over the ball/let it go through his legs shimmy thing, which surely could be classed as playing the ball? That has directly impacted the defending.

The trip: the trip resulted in a player clear on goal.

I would assume the referee didn't see it, if he had he would have blown for it based on how much time Lyon players spent on the floor. Then I don't really know what VAR did? Seemed an obvious mistake in my eyes.

Here is the part of the Laws that document offside. The Lyon player did not play the ball. He did not interfere with a defender. It’s not offside.

 

[Big Cat]

Onside, no discussion needed
The trip is problematic
It's not the sort of C&O mistake VAR was intended for; but then VAR tends to make things up by ordinarily penalising any foul in the immediate build-up to a goal. If C&O is the criteria, then VAR got it right; however City have cause for grievance because precedents would probably all have called the foul. However, Sterling and Ederson arguably contributed more to the defeat

 

[RefIADad]

Having watched the replay of the contact, I’m less convinced it’s a foul than I am of the City player veering into the path of the Lyon player. Everyone is looking at the ball. I think it’s much more of an accidental coming together.

 

[bloovee]

Can we bury the "offside" debate? Some of us learnt the laws when the words used meant different things to what they do mean now, and part of the problem is that "interfering with play" never used to mean you had to touch the ball to be offside. You were offside if you were what is now "in an offside position". You were not to be penalised for being offside unless (ITOOTR) you were interfering with play or with an opponent or seeking to gain an advantage by being in an offside position. Players were instructed, "If you do find yourself in an offside position, keep clear of the play and neither interfere with nor inconvenience an opponent nor make a pretence of doing so". Jumping over a ball meant that you would almost certainly be penalised (in fact offsides were given for some ridiculous play when attackers were not by any stretch of the imagination interfering). City had one disallowed (Danny Tiatto) which was virtually the same as one of the "not offside" diagrams in the book at the time.

So things like changing the meaning of "gaining an advantage" to mean not any advantage but a particular situation (rebounds) made nonsense of language - not just creating referees' "jargon" but blowing away any common understanding of "gaining an advantage" (so referees could then sound all superior by complaining that players and fans don't know the law). There is absolutely no need for the phrase in the law any more. Just delete "or gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:" and substitute "The above criteria also apply when the ball has" and rephrase the bullet point about receiving the ball from an opponent.

Sorry, a bit of a rant about why people don't understand why this incident wasn't offside (unless he did touch it) due to badly-phrased law (which doesn't seem to be getting better). Is there a law 11 thread already going?

Maybe we could just concentrate here on the nonsense of a VAR protocol that implies that VAR leaves subjective decisions to the referee after OFR, but doesn't acknowledge that deciding whether it's a clear and obvious error is itself a subjective decision.

 

[Big Cat]

Without doubt, whether they're supposed to or nor, immediately before a goal, VAR treats ANY foul like HB. The trip was easily sufficient to class as 'careless'. I hate the OFR, but it is mandated if a review is indicated. It's all a load of nonsense. The 'simple game' is no more