MOTD

JIMNNINA said:
Howard Webb hiding away as usual when PGMOL officials get things wrong.

Offside was clearly and obviously signalled by the assistant and referee.
VAR then decides neither match official understands the law their are applying.

The shirt holding was lazy defending and deserved a yellow
Click to expand...

It wasn't wrong Jim.
 
stanthevan said:
What I don’t understand is that he is apparently not interfering with play but if he had scored, the goal would have been ruled out for offside as he was interfering with play.
Click to expand...
The argument is that he's not interfering with play when he was fouled so the decision stands which is sort of fair enough provided you ignore the fact that pretty much every minor foul off the ball is let go.

The problem is that what constitutes interfering with play is pretty broad (I pasted it verbatim here) it includes any attempt to play the ball or impact an opponent and goes as far as blocking sightlines to the ball.
 
Regardless of the complexities behind offside or not... At the end of the day, Smith shouldn't have pulled his shirt, and pull it so ridiculously as well... End of...

If it was in the middle of the park it would have been a yellow...

Someone so experienced should know better, right on the edge of the box...

I also don't understand Iraola's comments afterwards about Smith only pulling his shirt as he lost him and he would have been more further forward if he hadn't pulled it... WTF.. You pull the shirt you're gonna get penalised... Again... End of!!

It was a costly mistake by Smith...
 
Kudos said:
The argument is that he's not interfering with play when he was fouled so the decision stands which is sort of fair enough provided you ignore the fact that pretty much every minor foul off the ball is let go.

The problem is that what constitutes interfering with play is pretty broad (I pasted it verbatim here) it includes any attempt to play the ball or impact an opponent and goes as far as blocking sightlines to the ball.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters when there is an explicit clarification stated clearly in the rules. You don't get to a consideration of what is and isn't interfering because the law tells you that a guy who is offside and moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it is to be treated as onside in this circumstance. It's there in black and white.
 
JIMNNINA said:
The on field decision was clear and obvious.
Taking the time it took to over rule it was the issue which undermined the officials as it meant they didn't understand the law as they had called the offside
Click to expand...

His missed the shirt pull, a clear and obvious error. The fact that it is a foul is surely not in doubt.
 
'the law tells you that a guy who is offside and moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it is to be treated as onside in this circumstance.'

This is the mess they've created for themselves. Does anyone know when this was decided? That offside isn't always off side.
 
fritter said:
'the law tells you that a guy who is offside and moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it is to be treated as onside in this circumstance.'

This is the mess they've created for themselves. Does anyone know when this was decided? That offside isn't always off side.
Click to expand...
I've seen it before where a player offside leaves the ball to a player running in onside scores the goal. The offside player was affecting play but nothing was given.
 
fritter said:
'the law tells you that a guy who is offside and moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it is to be treated as onside in this circumstance.'

This is the mess they've created for themselves. Does anyone know when this was decided? That offside isn't always off side.
Click to expand...

Offside hasn't necessarily meant offside since 1903.
 
A technical basis in law for it being the correct decision, and fault lies with Smith.

That we'd see countless penalties every game if that was applied consistently, that the on-field decision was overturned and it took 4 1/2 minutes and 12 replays to decide to overturn it, still leaves PGMOL with questions to answer.

Not that we'll ever hear about it again, it'll be brushed under the carpet because nobody cares unless it's given against Liverpool, Arsenal or Man Utd. Not that it would be given against them, for exactly that reason.

Yes it sounds like I've a chip on my shoulder :)
 
But wasn't Smithy pulling his shirt outside the box? I thought that if the foul starts outside the box then any free kick should be given outside the box? - and VAR will not get involved in an incident outside the box?
So no free kick given means the offside should stand?
 
punkrockcherry said:
But wasn't Smithy pulling his shirt outside the box? I thought that if the foul starts outside the box then any free kick should be given outside the box? - and VAR will not get involved in an incident outside the box?
So no free kick given means the offside should stand?
Click to expand...
If it continues in the box it’s a penalty. I recall us getting a similar decision for a tackle but can’t remember the game.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I don't think it matters when there is an explicit clarification stated clearly in the rules. You don't get to a consideration of what is and isn't interfering because the law tells you that a guy who is offside and moving towards the ball with the intention of playing it is to be treated as onside in this circumstance. It's there in black and white.
Click to expand...

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
or challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Schar is instantly involved with "active play" as per the definition above the moment the ball is kicked. He is not fouled before that point. It has not "occurred before the offside offence" as written above.
 
dragonm8 said:
Can't really blame the ref.

VAR should have called it a non incident.

Wasn't even a goal mouth action.

I guess a draw after all is a fair result.

Doms goal was fortunate for us.

Just didn't like the way VAR swings the game when it's not like the Newcastle guy was going to bury it.

SMITH however shouldn't have given them the opportunity to review it.

Wasn't even a dangerous situation.

Just like Kelly's penalty pullback v Fulham.

Guy couldn't have scored from there Lloyd
Click to expand...
Agree. Smith invites the decision with a daft challenge
 
Kudos said:
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
or challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Schar is instantly involved with "active play" as per the definition above the moment the ball is kicked. He is not fouled before that point. It has not "occurred before the offside offence" as written above.
Click to expand...

No, there is an ambiguity in the law that is clarified by the added clause that covers the situation giving rise to the ambiguity.

The ambiguity is what happens first, the offside or the foul - you've stated the case for the offside. The case that the foul comes first is that although the offside is judged from the moment the ball is kicked it doesn't become an offence until he interferes with play, which can't be determined until the ball gets there - if the ball went nowhere near him he hasn't commited an offside offence.

You and I can argue whether we think the offside offence or the foul takes precedence but it's irrelevant because the law has the added clause that clarifies which one takes precedence - the foul. There is no ambiguity because the law clarifies it.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Really? Tell that to every defender on every corner. I watched the Man United game yesterday, funny there wasn't a penalty in for shirt pulling in that match despite them grabbing handfuls of luton shirts.
Click to expand...

You don't see many as blatent as Smiths one there though do you? Ridiculous decision by the player.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
Blatant? They were blatant yesterday. In one replay there were three defenders pulling Luton shirts. How is one more blatant than three?
Click to expand...

Who cares? Different game, different ref and didn't involve a team I support. There could have been a bad referee decision in the Dog and Duck vs the Kings Arms on Sunday but that doesn't mean that Smith pulling that guy's shirts wasn't a foul.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;