dannybcity
Well-Known Member
JimB said:Sorry, fella, but the referee hasn't "interpreted the rule wrong".
The relevant section reads:
"interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an
opponent
Did Gallas make a movement towards the ball? Certainly.
Is it possible that such a movement could, in other circumstances, have deceived or distracted a goalkeeper? Absolutely.
But, in this instance, Schwarzer was already in full flight, diving to his right to make the save. His movement didn't (indeed, couldn't) deviate one iota from its original trajectory, despite Gallas' attempted intervention. The simple truth is that there was no way that Schwarzer was ever going to be able to make the save - Gallas or no Gallas.
And that was clearly Mike Dean's opinion. As far as he was concerned, Gallas' attempted intervention didn't deceive or distract Schwarzer. And since the rule specifically states that such decisions must be a judgement call by the referee, he was entirely within his rights to overrule the linesman.
You could argue that Dean interpreted the events on the pitch incorrectly - that Schwarzer was deceived / distracted and that he would have made the save if Gallas hadn't made a play for the ball (though the video evidence suggests that you would be wrong to do so).
But you can't argue that Dean interpreted the rule incorrectly.
I can't agree Jim, Schwarzer can't fully commit to the save until the ball has passed Gallas therefore he has deceived Schwarzer (he's effectively dummied it) which has also distracted him. It's completely irrelevent whtehr he's stood directly in the way, he's still in his peripheral version. I've no dount Dean knows the wording of the rule inside out, he either doesn't understand how the game is played (which is criminal for a Premiership ref) or he has applied it wrong which in my book is akin to bad interpretation.
He's caused a talking point I suppose though and there's nothing better than a debate about the offside rule.