Ref Watch

[Colin Bell (genuine name)]

I haven’t got the images to post but it’s fucking unbelievable that the former referee Dermott Gallagher claims Akanji was in Leno’s eyeline but Salah wasn’t in the Villa keepers when he’s stood there looking at the exact opposite scenario. Don’t get me wrong, I think Akanji was offside and Fulham were unlucky in that decision, but he (Gallagher) then said Akanji “clearly attempts to play the ball” when he jumps over the thing to get out of the way!

I watched that as well. Akanji is a professional football player being coached by probably the best managers ever and playing in one of the best teams ever. I think he would know how to kick a football Dermot you fucking liar

 

[Centurions]

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

Don't be moronic.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

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

If the police are standing there watching, yes.

 

[waspish]

I haven’t got the images to post but it’s fucking unbelievable that the former referee Dermott Gallagher claims Akanji was in Leno’s eyeline but Salah wasn’t in the Villa keepers when he’s stood there looking at the exact opposite scenario. Don’t get me wrong, I think Akanji was offside and Fulham were unlucky in that decision, but he (Gallagher) then said Akanji “clearly attempts to play the ball” when he jumps over the thing to get out of the way!

Not one with agreeing with Dermot but was right with both incidents, Akanji moved he feet if trying not to touch the ball or trying to tap it in he is active for me once he moves towards or away from the ball. Salah was didn't interfere with the ball whatsoever he was running away!

 

[Bozzie]

Not one with agreeing with Dermot but was right with both incidents, Akanji moved he feet if trying not to touch the ball or trying to tap it in he is active for me once he moves towards or away from the ball. Salah was didn't interfere with the ball whatsoever he was running away!

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.

 

[M12Blue]

M

Not one with agreeing with Dermot but was right with both incidents, Akanji moved he feet if trying not to touch the ball or trying to tap it in he is active for me once he moves towards or away from the ball. Salah was didn't interfere with the ball whatsoever he was running away!

Moving out of tge way makes you active? I didn't know that

 

[bluenova]

Not one with agreeing with Dermot but was right with both incidents, Akanji moved he feet if trying not to touch the ball or trying to tap it in he is active for me once he moves towards or away from the ball. Salah was didn't interfere with the ball whatsoever he was running away!

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.

 

[waspish]

M

Moving out of tge way makes you active? I didn't know that

it's just what Dermot said why it was definite ofside

 

[Bozzie]

it's just what Dermot said why it was definite ofside

It’s the presenter, Rob Wootton, who said Akanji “jumps out of the way”. Gallagher clearly stated that Akanji “is offside twice” because he’s in the goalkeepers line of sight and goes to play the ball. Neither of which is correct.

 

[waspish]

It’s the presenter, Rob Wootton, who said Akanji “jumps out of the way”. Gallagher clearly stated that Akanji “is offside twice” because he’s in the goalkeepers line of sight and goes to play the ball. Neither of which is correct.

Dermot needs to learn the ofside rules

 

[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