Forest v Newcastle
- Thread starter David F
- Start date
Mooseybaby
Retired big bad baldy in all black!
Considered a deflection as opposed to a deliberate play by the defender? Think the Forest player closest to the line may have kicked the ball onto the furthest forward Newcastle player.
Not sure what Forest's complaints about the penalty were other than delaying tactics, one of the most ridiculous and deliberate handballs you will ever see!
Not sure what Forest's complaints about the penalty were other than delaying tactics, one of the most ridiculous and deliberate handballs you will ever see!
Last season that is a goal, no doubt about it.
With the law change/clarification in the summer, it’s offside for me but very tight and subjective - hence the OFR following VAR check.
The play by the Forest defender centrally (cutting out the initial cross) is a deflection as the defender is stretching to cut the ball out rather than a deliberate, controlled play.
The more interesting one in the subsequent touch by the Forest player that deflects off Longstaff. For me there is 2 parts of this:
I’m OK with the offside decision given that changes to Law 11 interpretation this season.
With the law change/clarification in the summer, it’s offside for me but very tight and subjective - hence the OFR following VAR check.
The play by the Forest defender centrally (cutting out the initial cross) is a deflection as the defender is stretching to cut the ball out rather than a deliberate, controlled play.
The more interesting one in the subsequent touch by the Forest player that deflects off Longstaff. For me there is 2 parts of this:
- Is this a deliberate play or not? For me you can argue either way. It’s more likely a deliberate play that the previous touch as the player has time to run and intercept. However, he is still stretching to play the intercept so it’s arguable.
- If we treat it as a deliberate play, is Longstaff challenging an opponent at this point? Possible, considering he is very close and moving towards the player to close down. He could therefore be considered an impacting the opponent by challenging him.
I’m OK with the offside decision given that changes to Law 11 interpretation this season.
I wouldn't quite go that far. It's a bit of a stretch and he has a level of control. I think it's offside mind (though I don't think it should be - different discussion!)
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
What does the law say now about a deliberate play ?
Surely if someone is stretching and making an attempt to play the ball thats deliberate.
Surely if someone is stretching and making an attempt to play the ball thats deliberate.
Russell Jones
RefChat Addict
Regrettably not. Whilst it's clearly a deliberate action this doesn't automatically relate to being a deliberate play. As others have said, we also now need to take into account the amount of control in the defender's action and instinctive blocks / stretching to reach a ball are now likely to be classed as a deflection rather than a deliberate play.
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
Yeah just seen the Gary Neville clip from last night.
It gives 5 bullet points and this incident probably doesn't tick four of the boxes, the only one that saves him is the fact he's stretching.
I know personal opinion shouldn't come into it but i find that the wrong decision.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
Agree. It’s a dog’s dinner. Long discussion at pre season training.
The big ”mistake” the writers have used is the ”deliberate” term. That has been so confusing for the football family in the handball law, you’d think they would’ve learned by now!
The big ”mistake” the writers have used is the ”deliberate” term. That has been so confusing for the football family in the handball law, you’d think they would’ve learned by now!
I'm in favour of giving the defender some benefit of the doubt (it makes the judgement easier to referee for one thing), but this was an example of taking things miles too far. Stupid outcome that left everyone utterly bewildered. Typical VAR sucking 'value' out of the game
Can someone remind me what happened with the Mo Salah incident a month or so ago?
PGMOL came out afterwards and said they got it wrong? Did this have any similarities?
Like @spuddy1878 said, of the long list, this only ticked one box (control of the ball or similar)
Good ideas (like safe refereeing) become really bad refereeing when the principal gets taken too far. Defender was rewarded for keeping the ball in play when he had enough control to put it out for a CK? No?
For anyone who hasn't seen it;
Think Neville's analysis is spot on... it's a farcical outcome (not blaming the Refs even though PT was poor on the night)
Can someone remind me what happened with the Mo Salah incident a month or so ago?
PGMOL came out afterwards and said they got it wrong? Did this have any similarities?
Like @spuddy1878 said, of the long list, this only ticked one box (control of the ball or similar)
Good ideas (like safe refereeing) become really bad refereeing when the principal gets taken too far. Defender was rewarded for keeping the ball in play when he had enough control to put it out for a CK? No?
For anyone who hasn't seen it;
Think Neville's analysis is spot on... it's a farcical outcome (not blaming the Refs even though PT was poor on the night)
Last edited:
Agree with this 100%
deusex
RefChat Addict
As confusing as the IFAB videos are,
I think this would just fit under the "instinctive reaction" video.
It's a tough one to judge because he SHOULD have delt with it a lot easier. But it looks like he misjudges it then just throws a leg at it.
I wouldn't be criticising the referee whichever way he went on this one.
Perhaps the attacking team should have got the BOTD?
I think this would just fit under the "instinctive reaction" video.
It's a tough one to judge because he SHOULD have delt with it a lot easier. But it looks like he misjudges it then just throws a leg at it.
I wouldn't be criticising the referee whichever way he went on this one.
Perhaps the attacking team should have got the BOTD?
So on the ref watch, you basically had Gallagher and the 2 pundits saying they got no idea why the VAR got himself involved and the goal should of stood yet 2 former FIFA referees(although classing Bankes as a true FIFA ref would be a bit misleading) saying the goal should be disallowed as it was not a deliberate play on the ball. Says it all about the laws doesnt it?
For me, it should of been a goal, I think Felipe passed the ball which another Forest defender touched it which hits Longstaff, it looks a deliberate pass to play themselves out of trouble.
In fairness though, I'm glad Tierney was able to review his decision and have the final say on the matter which is only right.
For me, it should of been a goal, I think Felipe passed the ball which another Forest defender touched it which hits Longstaff, it looks a deliberate pass to play themselves out of trouble.
In fairness though, I'm glad Tierney was able to review his decision and have the final say on the matter which is only right.
I dont think it is a good goal. I would pay as little attention to former referees and especially pundits opinions as you can.
These people are now in the media, and if you think they are there out of the goodness of their hearts you are mistaken.
There are lots and lots of threads here where these 'pundits' have not been quite correct in law and look at things as they were in their day.or with limited practical knowledge or how the refs are being trained to apply/interpret the law.
A lot of people are paying a lot of attention to deliberate play and gaining an advantage. The offence, as far as I can tell, is interfering with opponent.
The Newcastle attacker is in an offside position when it is last played by an attacker.
In line with the clarifications on deliberate play, the offside player is still considered as offside when the ball is intercepted by the forest defender.
There is then a 2nd play by another forest defender, which is deliberate, but at this point the interfering with opponent offence occurs when the Newcastle attacker immediately challenges the opponent who is making that play.
The worry for me is that, quite rightly, this one, whilst technically correct, doesn't feel right and that we get a knee jerk reaction to shoe horn in, or make changes to accommodate a one off, unusual scenario.