Ref Watch

You wonder why gaffes that cost City don’t get enough publicity and apologies from the FA? Blame all the outside forces all you want but we have a huge part of the blame.

Why do we never complain formally and even some of our fans justify wrongdoing against us. I wouldn’t be surprised to see bluemooners justify the injustice of the Rashford/Bruno offside goal on this forum. If someone’s gonna speak for you, you gotta speak for yourself first.

Is it surprising that there are media houses that try to play the “offside rule is unclear” card? They were emboldened to continue lying because we decided to keep mum.
 
halfcenturyup said:
Agree with most of that, and in the same vein, the handball rule should start off by saying the over-riding principle is that a player commits an offence by deliberately handling the ball, then going to list the elements that should be taken into account to determine a deliberate action, if they want that much detail.
Click to expand...
Deliberate was removed because the only person who could know a handball was deliberate was the player him/herself. The referee could only have an opinion and as we know to our cost subjective can be easily twisted
 
fierydan said:
Deliberate was removed because the only person who could know a handball was deliberate was the player him/herself. The referee could only have an opinion and as we know to our cost subjective can be easily twisted
Click to expand...
.... And deliberate plays for determining offside?
 
Cassandra said:
It is a subjective judgement as to whether Haaland challenged Gabriel or whether it was entirely Gabriel challenging Haaland. I favour the latter but others will differ. If I remember correctly a few years ago Kane was awarded a penalty in not entirely different circumstances and around the same time City were penalised similarly in a European game.

However the real problem is how the offside law (& there is a similar problem with the handball law) is that it concentrates On the minutiae and has lost the sense of the purpose of the law. When IFAB met shortly after the Derby and decided that they didn’t need to relook at the law, to me they simply indicated that they are not fit for purpose.

The law should start with a clear statement of what the purpose of the law is. My view would be that it should state. The purpose of this law should be to prevent a team gaining an advantage by one or more players are in an offside position when the ball is played forward to to them.

Then it could go on to state that the factors to be considered by the referee in considering whether players are in an offside position and if they are gaining an advantage.

With some rephrasing the present law could then be listed. I would add a condition that if a player came back from an offside before receiving the ball they would normally no longer be considered to have gained an advantage by being in an offside position and add that to be considered to be offside there should be a clear gap between the player and the last defender.

In my view there was no advantage to Harland as he was moving in the wrong direction in coming back from an offside position and came back onside before turning a setting off to follow the ball. There is a sense in which Haaland was disadvantaged compared with Rashford simply because he was only just offside so contact with the defender came early on whereas Rashford gained such an advantage over Akanji that any contact by Akanji would would almost certainly be given as a foul.
Click to expand...
Can you stop this?

A player doesn’t only influence play when he is challenging or holding off or having physical contact with an opposition player

Why do we always like to dwell on the potential impact of Rashford on Akanji (which they use as one of their arguments) while we ignore the impact of Rashford on Ederson?

There is no way you can follow the run of the ball (even without touching it) without affecting the decision making of your opposing players.

The point above is the reason why when players are offside, they stop right in their tracks or try to quickly go back rather than continue their original run. It’s the only way to prove that you are not influencing the play.

Can we stop giving the media reasons to explain away daylight robbery? Hand on heart I have not seen a worse referee decision this season but they’ll never admit because we help their case.
 
I’d be waiting to know the difference between Rashford’s offside goal not called and Haaland’s own which was called. Rashford didn’t touch anybody but Haaland was in a physical tussle with Gabriel. Right?

Question is do players have to be in physical contact with opposing players before they can affect play? Stop blaming the rules. As imperfect as it might seem, it has served us for decades with efficiency to a reasonable extent. BLAME THE REF who allowed Rashford to run with the ball for 10 seconds, shielding it in the process, and allowing his teammate play a shot.

Tell me that Ederson wasn’t impacted by the active presence of Rashers and Akanji and Walker?

Oh give me a break!
 
Excuse me, I think that you have misunderstood my point. I in no way try to defend Attwell’s decision to allow the Derby goal. The point I was making was that whilst in the Harland case because the players were close together it was debatable who challenged whom whilst in the Rashford case because Rashford was so far ahead the only way Akanji could have got to the ball was likely to be called as a foul.
ojeme said:
Can you stop this?

A player doesn’t only influence play when he is challenging or holding off or having physical contact with an opposition player

Why do we always like to dwell on the potential impact of Rashford on Akanji (which they use as one of their arguments) while we ignore the impact of Rashford on Ederson?

There is no way you can follow the run of the ball (even without touching it) without affecting the decision making of your opposing players.

The point above is the reason why when players are offside, they stop right in their tracks or try to quickly go back rather than continue their original run. It’s the only way to prove that you are not influencing the play.

Can we stop giving the media reasons to explain away daylight robbery? Hand on heart I have not seen a worse referee decision this season but they’ll never admit because we help their case.
Click to expand...
 
Paladin said:
What? Are you seriously saying Haaland didn't challenge for the ball when he was fouled for the penalty award? Haaland and Gabriel were both running towards the ball, trying to take possession of it. What is your understanding of the word challenge, if this incident isn't covered by it?
Click to expand...
They were quite some way from the ball when Haaland was fouled. Certainly not close enough to touch it. According to the Rashford incident he cant possibly be called offside/challenging for the ball. It was an off the ball incident. As the foul came first (according to the current law). A player stood in an offside position isnt an offence in itself.

Here’s the IFAB Official line on it. Clear Pen…. Plus a pic of them clearly not close enough to be considered as playing the ball
 

Attachments

  • B815C7E2-6DF3-4C99-8A68-47C4835C69CF.jpeg
    B815C7E2-6DF3-4C99-8A68-47C4835C69CF.jpeg
    747.7 KB · Views: 43
  • 3068BB5F-ABC5-4744-BE99-1A728ADE527F.jpeg
    3068BB5F-ABC5-4744-BE99-1A728ADE527F.jpeg
    199.9 KB · Views: 42
Last edited:
Cassandra said:
It is a subjective judgement as to whether Haaland challenged Gabriel or whether it was entirely Gabriel challenging Haaland. I favour the latter but others will differ. If I remember correctly a few years ago Kane was awarded a penalty in not entirely different circumstances and around the same time City were penalised similarly in a European game.

However the real problem is how the offside law (& there is a similar problem with the handball law) is that it concentrates On the minutiae and has lost the sense of the purpose of the law. When IFAB met shortly after the Derby and decided that they didn’t need to relook at the law, to me they simply indicated that they are not fit for purpose.

The law should start with a clear statement of what the purpose of the law is. My view would be that it should state. The purpose of this law should be to prevent a team gaining an advantage by one or more players are in an offside position when the ball is played forward to to them.

Then it could go on to state that the factors to be considered by the referee in considering whether players are in an offside position and if they are gaining an advantage.

With some rephrasing the present law could then be listed. I would add a condition that if a player came back from an offside before receiving the ball they would normally no longer be considered to have gained an advantage by being in an offside position and add that to be considered to be offside there should be a clear gap between the player and the last defender.

In my view there was no advantage to Harland as he was moving in the wrong direction in coming back from an offside position and came back onside before turning a setting off to follow the ball. There is a sense in which Haaland was disadvantaged compared with Rashford simply because he was only just offside so contact with the defender came early on whereas Rashford gained such an advantage over Akanji that any contact by Akanji would would almost certainly be given as a foul.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with your point about stating the purpose of the law at the outset. This is what Webb tries to do before he goes on to make up some excuse for a mistake. (See his explanation about the Rashford decision). He's admitted that it should have been offside, and will be penalised as such in future.

Regarding your interpretation of 'challenge', this is already prescribed in the LOTG.

It's pretty clear that Haaland and Gabriel were challenging each other, and it's therefore hard to argue that the offside decision wasn't correct - under the current interpretation of the law. However, it is also pertinent that Haaland achieved an onside position before challenging for the ball, so he didn't gain any advantage by being in the offside position. Your suggested statement to summarise the purpose of the law should resolve this kind of dilemma.

IFAB determined that the law was already sufficient after the Rashford incident, and this is absolutely correct. It was the refereeing team that got this totally wrong. Oliver on VAR and Cann on the line are as much to blame as Attwell for letting that goal stand. Webb's weasel words about subjectivity are merely obfuscation.
51410a86cc75349e3e4f48e5aced2c5c.jpg
 
Paladin said:
Totally agree with your point about stating the purpose of the law at the outset. This is what Webb tries to do before he goes on to make up some excuse for a mistake. (See his explanation about the Rashford decision). He's admitted that it should have been offside, and will be penalised as such in future.

Regarding your interpretation of 'challenge', this is already prescribed in the LOTG.

It's pretty clear that Haaland and Gabriel were challenging each other, and it's therefore hard to argue that the offside decision wasn't correct - under the current interpretation of the law. However, it is also pertinent that Haaland achieved an onside position before challenging for the ball, so he didn't gain any advantage by being in the offside position. Your suggested statement to summarise the purpose of the law should resolve this kind of dilemma.

IFAB determined that the law was already sufficient after the Rashford incident, and this is absolutely correct. It was the refereeing team that got this totally wrong. Oliver on VAR and Cann on the line are as much to blame as Attwell for letting that goal stand. Webb's weasel words about subjectivity are merely obfuscation.
51410a86cc75349e3e4f48e5aced2c5c.jpg
Click to expand...

And the rags get to keep the points they shouldn't have had .


like night following day for the cunts
 
ojeme said:
I’d be waiting to know the difference between Rashford’s offside goal not called and Haaland’s own which was called. Rashford didn’t touch anybody but Haaland was in a physical tussle with Gabriel. Right?

Question is do players have to be in physical contact with opposing players before they can affect play? Stop blaming the rules. As imperfect as it might seem, it has served us for decades with efficiency to a reasonable extent. BLAME THE REF who allowed Rashford to run with the ball for 10 seconds, shielding it in the process, and allowing his teammate play a shot.

Tell me that Ederson wasn’t impacted by the active presence of Rashers and Akanji and Walker?

Oh give me a break!
Click to expand...
The Rashford incident is not one that should be used as a comparator. Howard Webb has admitted that that was a mistake, and if it happens again, it will be penalised as offside.

It would have been interesting if City players had pointed out to Taylor that Haaland didn't touch the ball, and report back his response in the post match interviews.
 
Bluearmy said:
They were quite some way from the ball when Haaland was fouled. Certainly not close enough to touch it. According to the Rashford incident he cant possibly be called offside/challenging for the ball. It was an off the ball incident. As the foul came first (according to the current law). A player stood in an offside position isnt an offence in itself.

Here’s the IFAB Official line on it. Clear Pen…. Plus a pic of them clearly not close enough to be considered as playing the ball
Click to expand...
I understand your point, but my response is explained in recent replies.

The Rashford incident can't be used as an example of an offside decision because PGMOL has subsequently said it was an incorrect decision.

The Laws of the Game give a definition of challenging for the ball. I think Haaland and Gabriel both fit the definition.

9d4d76667a52b35514372e6d4d827732.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top