ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Was it really offside?
West Ham v Chelsea
- Thread starter ladbroke8745
- Start date
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Is he interfering with play?
He Is laying on the floor and Kepa done what he usually does and stood up. Did he, by laying on the floor, really get in Kepas way?
He Is laying on the floor and Kepa done what he usually does and stood up. Did he, by laying on the floor, really get in Kepas way?
I suppose you could argue that he stops Kepa from being able to smother the ball like a goalkeeper would attempt. I’m not saying thats what happened. Simply playing devils advocate
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
West Ham and a Chelsea player battle for ball and West Ham player ends up on floor. Another West Ham player sticks leg out and chips it over team mate and past Kepa who was more or less standing there and moved about an inch.
The head of the player laying down was offside. He was not laying for the sake it, he was laying because he and a Chelsea player fell down and the Chelsea player got up to try defend leaving the West Ham player there.
The head of the player laying down was offside. He was not laying for the sake it, he was laying because he and a Chelsea player fell down and the Chelsea player got up to try defend leaving the West Ham player there.
My initial view was the shot hit him on the way through, in which case he is definitely offside. But from watching replay after replay I can't be sure on that, and if it didn't hit him there is no way he can be offside.
Of more concern for me is the laughable stoppage time being applied since restart. 3.5 minutes for the VAR decision, from stopping play for the drinks break to restarting was over 2 minutes, yet 3 minutes are added in total. That is absolutely ridiculous.
Of more concern for me is the laughable stoppage time being applied since restart. 3.5 minutes for the VAR decision, from stopping play for the drinks break to restarting was over 2 minutes, yet 3 minutes are added in total. That is absolutely ridiculous.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
You're kidding?
3 minutes?
onthebrink
Well-Known Member
Wasn't Jon Moss also VAR for the Everton V Man Utd disallowed goal in February?
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Pretty sure it hit him and went back from initial shot where he was onside at the time. When it went back he chipped it over him.
ladbroke8745
RefChat Addict
Like Brenda from Bristol said...... Not another one.....
)spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
Id still be there now if i was in the VAR hub.
I honestly dont know what decision is right here, cant really tell if the balls hits the grounded player or not.
I honestly dont know what decision is right here, cant really tell if the balls hits the grounded player or not.
spuddy1878
RefChat Addict
If the ball doesn't hit the player on the floor (think its ANTONIO) t has to be a goal surely.
Did Antonio stop Keppa from as the law states "prevent a player from playing the ball" NO
Or by "clearly obstructing a players line of vision"
Again NO for me.
Did Antonio stop Keppa from as the law states "prevent a player from playing the ball" NO
Or by "clearly obstructing a players line of vision"
Again NO for me.
santa sangria
RefChat Addict
My take on this is (again) not inline with the above.
I think it’s an easy offside to give.
The LotG cannot cover every scenario. We can pick at the laws to try and find reasons why this isn’t an offence. We are used to doing that. I think we can also pick at the laws for reasons why this is an offence: obvious distracting writhing on the floor, directly in the GK’s eyeline, so close to the GK and the ball that the prone player is within tackling and ball playing distance.
If you want a legal basis then I would go with making an obvious action that clearly impacts... Why? Because the defender has to step over the player to try to challenge and the GK makes contact with the player in attempting to save.
These might be trifling... but... holistic view... we can’t have players in offside positions less than a metre in front of goalkeepers when goals are scored. IMHO it’s crazy to try and bend the laws to justify this.
(Great result for WHU. All because I sang Blowing Bubbles at a colleague wearing a WHU cap across a pizza restaurant yesterday!)
I think it’s an easy offside to give.
The LotG cannot cover every scenario. We can pick at the laws to try and find reasons why this isn’t an offence. We are used to doing that. I think we can also pick at the laws for reasons why this is an offence: obvious distracting writhing on the floor, directly in the GK’s eyeline, so close to the GK and the ball that the prone player is within tackling and ball playing distance.
If you want a legal basis then I would go with making an obvious action that clearly impacts... Why? Because the defender has to step over the player to try to challenge and the GK makes contact with the player in attempting to save.
These might be trifling... but... holistic view... we can’t have players in offside positions less than a metre in front of goalkeepers when goals are scored. IMHO it’s crazy to try and bend the laws to justify this.
(Great result for WHU. All because I sang Blowing Bubbles at a colleague wearing a WHU cap across a pizza restaurant yesterday!)
A clip conveniently edited just to miss the bit where the ball bounces back off the player on the floor. Add an extra 2 seconds to the start of it and you'd have at the very least, a much more questionable decision.
I'm with @deusex and @ladbroke8745 on this, I think the initial shot hits him on the floor. If we take that as a given, it's a straightforward offside - we don't even have to worry about the concept of "interfering" or not.
I'm with Santa on this if I am honest. Whilst it doesn't quite pigeon hole into the offside offences, he does actually impact azpilacuetas ability to play/challenge for the ball, and I think that is against the spirit of the game.
Azpilacuetas has to raise his foot over antonio, and the ball then goes under his foot.
You could really stretch it to fit the laws, an obvious action, lying on the ground, it's an action, it's obvious he is doing it, he impacts azpilacuetas ability to challenge. Offside.
Obviously this is if the ball doesn't actually touch antonio after being played by a team mate, because that's as clear an offside as you can get.
Id like to see the whole clip and see what happens before as well but based on that 5 seconds I think the safe bet, and most likely correct outcome is an offside offence
Azpilacuetas has to raise his foot over antonio, and the ball then goes under his foot.
You could really stretch it to fit the laws, an obvious action, lying on the ground, it's an action, it's obvious he is doing it, he impacts azpilacuetas ability to challenge. Offside.
Obviously this is if the ball doesn't actually touch antonio after being played by a team mate, because that's as clear an offside as you can get.
Id like to see the whole clip and see what happens before as well but based on that 5 seconds I think the safe bet, and most likely correct outcome is an offside offence
Longer version
If you skip to ~35s, the striker very clearly has two attempts to shoot, with the 2nd being the chip that goes in. The bit I still can't see 100% is if the first attempt hits his teammate on the floor (easy offside) or if he just misses the ball? My instinct is still to go with option A and disallow the goal - but without control of the video and the ability to zoom in at that key moment, I can't be totally sure....
If you skip to ~35s, the striker very clearly has two attempts to shoot, with the 2nd being the chip that goes in. The bit I still can't see 100% is if the first attempt hits his teammate on the floor (easy offside) or if he just misses the ball? My instinct is still to go with option A and disallow the goal - but without control of the video and the ability to zoom in at that key moment, I can't be totally sure....