Ref Watch

[halfcenturyup]

This is the only similar scenario I've seen in the IFAB guidance. It's not particularly recent, but I couldn't see any changes since. Suggests jumping out of the way of a ball that is going to hit you is allowed.

View attachment 92556

That's interesting though. Because the second paragraph seems to imply that, if a goalkeeper has to delay his save, the attacker would be offside.

 

[cleavers]

People can argue for ever about this, but the simple fact is it was a GOAL.

 

[Mr Fraser]

I thought from a fairness and logical standpoint Akanji was offside and should and would be given so, especially after Webb’s comments on the Rashford goal. It is ironic that the same hoops he (Webb) jumped through to absolve Atwell and VAR in that instance can be equally applied to Akanji. To claim he was trying to play the ball when he clearly wasn’t is nearly as absurd as claiming Salah wasn’t in the eyeline of the Villa keeper who is having to look around him.
Mark Halsey has criticised the decision and has posted the criteria for the rule. As yet he hasn’t responded to the question of which of the criteria did Akanji specifically contravene.

 

[Mr Fraser]

If it takes var a few mins to draw the lines for offside then fine. If it takes more than a few seconds to determine if a player in an offside position is active then there is something wrong with the law

 

[kaz7]

I recall swarsbrick twat saying var would use real time replays not slowed down , that lasted about a week , nobody has a fucking clue what is going on anymore

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

I recall swarsbrick twat saying var would use real time replays not slowed down , that lasted about a week , nobody has a fucking clue what is going on anymore

I'll tell you exactly what's going on. The Video ASSISTANT Referee is SUBJECTIVELY ASSISTING in situations where it SHOULD be black & white according to the LOTG.

 

[bluenova]

That's interesting though. Because the second paragraph seems to imply that, if a goalkeeper has to delay his save, the attacker would be offside.

I am pretty sure that's the case, as that's the bit about "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball". But everything I've seen suggests that it has to be because the attacker has done something to deliberately put that doubt in their mind - and they appear to be ruling out getting out of the way of the ball.

I still don't know if this is the most recent guidance - but couldn't find anything more recent, and I don't believe the laws or steps involved in deciding have changed.

 

[homerdog]

Fair enough.
And the scumbag who breaks into your house and robs you - it’s not his fault, it’s the old bill for not preventing him

Well, if there aren't any consequences for said scumbag, i.e. the old bill aren't interested, then yes.

 

[Milesvk]

PIGMOL are instructed by powers at be to favour a preferred outcome or objective. Situations are happening which goes against that preferred outcome but refs are still towing the party line in some instances hence the inconsistencies week by week. That is why rules are left to interpretation pretty much game by game. That is why so called big clubs seem to get more decisions go their way. That's my opinion.
For a so called professional organisation like Pigmol to train refs and linesman on full time basis, you would expect them to get most decisions correct but too many strange and weird decisions and far too many inconsistencies happening to suggest that they are getting things so badly incorrect.

In defence of refs, players and managers are not helping, they are themselves creating situations which doesn't help the ref and sometimes backfires on themselves.

 

[geoff hammond]

Well, if there aren't any consequences for said scumbag, i.e. the old bill aren't interested, then yes.

Not interested - or not funded enough and supported through the courts - but anyway back to topic.
Refs are incompetent cheats who need punishing and the time wasting, diving players are angels