Real Madrid Feminino vs Chelsea Women

[Peter Grove]

Disallowed Chelsea "goal" in the last seconds of the game.

Incident starting at 7:44 in the clip.

Commentators (I think) starting to suggest it might have been for a push by Kerr but it pretty much can't be because the referee has raised her arm - they also say the flag has gone up and no AR is going to be giving a foul when the referee is so much closer.

So it had to have been given for offside (interfering with an opponent) by the offside-positioned Kerr. However I don't see that she's affected an opponent's ability to play the ball. For me, the ball was so far over both their heads (and behind them) that the defender never had a chance of playing the ball.

Thoughts?

Then there's the two almost identical challenges on the very edge of the penalty area - Chelsea given a free kick outside the area, Real Madrid given a penalty.

 

[es1]

i think it's been given for 'kerr impacting the ability of the opponent to get the ball' which i dont agree happened - but it's the only explanation the makes sense to me as there's no way she's flagging the scorer for offside, surely...

 

[Russell Jones]

i think it's been given for 'kerr impacting the ability of the opponent to get the ball' which i dont agree happened - but it's the only explanation the makes sense to me as there's no way she's flagging the scorer for offside, surely...

Agreed. With the AR perfectly in line, the offside must have been called against one of the two players in an offside position, presumably #20. If so, I believe this is an incorrect decision. Would be interesting to know if the AR adjudged the alleged interference or whether (as I'd hope, given the use of comms) the referee made the call as she is better placed to do so. Fair to say that any time an attacker in an offside position makes physical contact with an opponent they run the risk of an offence being subjectively called .. but overall these are the kinds of situation where it often needs great teamwork to call it correctly.

 

[JamesL]

It's obviously subjective but I'm going to argue against the general consensus here:
Law 11 says it's an offence it a player in an offside position interferes with an opponent by
...
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

as the ball is in the air white 5 is moving backwards, judging the flight of the ball, the way the ball lands at the attackers feet I think there is an opportunity for her to intercept it, although I don't think the latter Part is as important here, her opportunity/ ability to play the ball is taken away by the action.

My summary:
Blue 20 makes an obvious action to block white 5 and I think its enough to say she clearly impacts the ability of White 5 to play the ball.

 

[Peter Grove]

My summary:
Blue 20 makes an obvious action to block white 5 and I think its enough to say she clearly impacts the ability of White 5 to play the ball.

I can see some merit in that argument but I'm not sure I agree with it. I don't think that White 5 (the player impacted by Blue 20) was ever in with a realistic chance of having the ability to play the ball. White 11 had a chance, but she was not impacted by Blue 20 at all.

Also, the referee seems to give the decision way too quickly to have had the opportunity to confer with the AR as to which player was in an offside position and what offside offence she's supposed to have committed.

In fact if you watch the video, as she raises her arm, she's looking at, and running towards the place where the goal scorer was. So I think she's just seen the flag go up and given the offside thinking it was against the goal scorer.

 

[JamesL]

I can see some merit in that argument but I'm not sure I agree with it. I don't think that White 5 (the player impacted by Blue 20) was ever in with a realistic chance of having the ability to play the ball. White 11 had a chance, but she was not impacted by Blue 20 at all.

Also, the referee seems to give the decision way too quickly to have had the opportunity to confer with the AR as to which player was in an offside position and what offside offence she's supposed to have committed.

In fact if you watch the video, as she raises her arm, she's looking at, and running towards the place where the goal scorer was. So I think she's just seen the flag go up and given the offside thinking it was against the goal scorer.

Exactly why I think it's subjective. I think either is supportable, depending on the referee opinion. We have found one here that is somewhere on the border.

I personally think that at the point of impact, the ball still has a way to travel and the trajectory of it (high looping and dropping as opposed to whipped in at a fast pace) means that she doesn't actually need to move much further to be in with a chance of intercepting the flight of the ball before it lands on the attackers foot.

I agree if there was ZERO chance then her ability wasnt impacted; for me there was a chance and so her ability to was clearly impacted.

I suppose, we'll never know, for sure and it's all in opinion of ref. Although you are right, it's not clear whether she ever has an opinion on it and has just blindly accepted the flag.

You do wonder though what happens in footballers minds. Why does blue 20 make that contact, what is she seeking to achieve, apart from giving away a free kick, law 11 or 12?

 

[Peter Grove]

I suppose, we'll never know, for sure and it's all in opinion of ref. Although you are right, it's not clear whether she ever has an opinion on it and has just blindly accepted the flag.

I agree - the more I watch it, the more I think she's given the offside against Niamh Charles. Which would of course, be incorrect - she was at least 5 yards onside.

 

[DJIC]

I‘m more comfortable with the offside, does an offside position include impacting an opponent to mean the RM defender could have held her position & back tracked to get a header on the cross?

I think more up for debate is the contact for the penalty, does look outside the box for the RM penalty?

Penalty at 5.30

 

[RustyRef]

It's obviously subjective but I'm going to argue against the general consensus here:
Law 11 says it's an offence it a player in an offside position interferes with an opponent by
...
"making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"

as the ball is in the air white 5 is moving backwards, judging the flight of the ball, the way the ball lands at the attackers feet I think there is an opportunity for her to intercept it, although I don't think the latter Part is as important here, her opportunity/ ability to play the ball is taken away by the action.

My summary:
Blue 20 makes an obvious action to block white 5 and I think its enough to say she clearly impacts the ability of White 5 to play the ball.

Agree with this, not sure I'd be giving it but I can see why the AR has given it. The attacker in an offside position has very obviously made a movement to block off a defender, whether that impacted anyone's ability to play the ball is debatable but there is certainly an action in there. When I heard Emma Hayes talk about it she made it sound like the worst offside decision ever, it is far from being that.

 

[Peter Grove]

Agree with this, not sure I'd be giving it but I can see why the AR has given it. The attacker in an offside position has very obviously made a movement to block off a defender, whether that impacted anyone's ability to play the ball is debatable but there is certainly an action in there. When I heard Emma Hayes talk about it she made it sound like the worst offside decision ever, it is far from being that.

As I said before, I can see the argument for interfering with an opponent. The problem I have with that, is that people are talking as if that's what the offside offence was actually, correctly given for whereas as I pointed out, everything in the video suggests that the referee is giving it for an offside offence by Charles.

In fact I'm very sceptical that the AR has flagged for interfering with an opponent - I don't think she's close enough or in a good enough position to judge that (and my impression is that typically, AR's don't make that call, they leave it to the referee). I think she's just flagged because she saw Kerr in an offside position (and then getting somewhat close to the action) and there should then have been a communication over comms as to who was in an offside position and what the supposed offence was.

But the speed with which the offence was given and the clear indications that the referee is giving the position of the offence as where Charles was (not Kerr) strongly suggests to me that there was no such conversation between the officials, and the offence was given for entirely the wrong reasons.

 

[RustyRef]

As I said before, I can see the argument for interfering with an opponent. The problem I have with that, is that people are talking as if that's what the offside offence was actually, correctly given for whereas as I pointed out, everything in the video suggests that the referee is giving it for an offside offence by Charles.

In fact I'm very sceptical that the AR has flagged for interfering with an opponent - I don't think she's close enough or in a good enough position to judge that (and my impression is that typically, AR's don't make that call, they leave it to the referee). I think she's just flagged because she saw Kerr in an offside position (and then getting somewhat close to the action) and there should then have been a communication over comms as to who was in an offside position and what the supposed offence was.

But the speed with which the offence was given and the clear indications that the referee is giving the position of the offence as where Charles was (not Kerr) strongly suggests to me that there was no such conversation between the officials, and the offence was given for entirely the wrong reasons.

Guess we will never know for sure, but I am finding it very difficult to comprehend that a FIFA assistant would give offside against the player ringed below. It be one of, if the not the, worst offside decision of all time.