Ref Watch

[Dicko69]

Posted this analysis in the VAR thread as a response to another comment and thought it was worth posting in here, as it is more applicable to the ongoing topic of the thread.


Both of them would have had Foden in behind the United defender in the box and who is to say a chance couldn’t have come from either (though, one was obviously offside, but we know that doesn’t really matter now)? One was very tight, so why did the flag immediately go up?

As far as goal scoring opportunity playing a part, are linesman now doing xG calculations before deciding whether to raise their flag for offside? What is the xG threshold for immediate flag raise versus delayed flag raise? Who set the the threshold? Are they doing it in their heads or is someone confirming it in their ear the moment the potential offside is identified?

And, in the case of the United equaliser, it wasn’t tight, nor was it an immediate goal scoring opportunity (xG from his position when the ball was played forward is slightly higher than 0.00). Rashford was well off from the moment the pass was played, not even in our final third when he was offside, so why was the flag delayed until after Rashford had run 20 yards over the ball and Fernandes swept in to put it in the back of the net?

In fact, at no point was it a particularly great goal scoring opportunity, except that all three of our players were defending a ghost offside player who had possession of the ball. Really, there is no goal scoring opportunity if Rashford is not allowed to run over the ball, as either Akanji or Eddie easily clear it before Fernandes arrives.

Fernandes even shoots from outside and almost dead centre of the box which is a relatively low xG position.

Foden’s position for both of his immediate offside calls would have much higher xG.

Nothing about the officiating during the match makes much sense outside of specific potential frameworks of utter incompetence or outright manipulation.

On all those early photos, if rashford didn't chase the ball, ederson had plenty of time to have a touch and pick a pass or belt it well into the other half

 

[solley attwell]

I still don’t understand how a young , high profile ref at peak of his career suddenly vanish in thin air and ends up middle east.

We wont know until slurgie is brown bread

 

[blue b4 the moon]

I think he was suspended for gambling debts at one point earlier in career.

Fancy being so shit that you allegedly lost money on games ...and you're a referee.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Because he's one of the best and most experienced linesmen in the world. (Howard Webb's words). He didn't exactly make a strong case in favour of his offside flag to Attwell. It was a 15 second conversation, at most. He is more experienced than Attwell, and he should have said why Rashford was interfering. This bit is fact.

Plus, as previously pointed out here, he said something to Fernandes that caused Fernandes to turn away, all smiles. Following their conversation, Fernandes appeared to already know the goal would stand. This was before Attwell discussed it with Cann. This is speculation, but it fits in with what happened.

We’ll never find out but it seems to me that the goal had already been given over the blower and my opinion is that VAR had already told them to give it and the short conversation was them 2 just confirming the fact.

 

[SebastianBlue]

On all those early photos, if rashford didn't chase the ball, ederson had plenty of time to have a touch and pick a pass or belt it well into the other half

About 5 seconds to run about 20 yards, or about 13 kph (8 mph) to be exact.

I think Eddie could have managed it.

 

[Blueboy73]

While the 'goal' was clearly offside. I also don't understand how the young left back was allowed to repeated foul Mahrez from behind without a card.

Simple really, he plays in red

 

[Blueboy73]

I think there's a guy has a stall on Altrincham market who sells 'em. He's a mad Alty fan by all accounts.

Is it Anthony Taylor? :)

 

[Paladin]

Maybe the referee had already communicated with him that he was giving a goal before Fernandez confronted him? I haven’t studied it to see the exact moment he lowers his flag. But it wouldn’t take a long conversation for the referee to ask him if he’s got his flag up because Rashford has touched the ball? And when he says no, the referee to then tell him he’s giving the goal then. It would then be absolutely the wrong thing for a linesman to do to start arguing with his referee that he thinks he’s wrong.

This is stretching things a bit. When was the last time you heard there was no offside because a certain player didn't touch the ball? The player in an offside position touching the ball is mentioned very briefly in the LOTG. There is much more emphasis on players interfering with play or interfering with an opponent.

They should be discussing together whether Rashford was interfering with play, not whether or not he touched the ball.

And here's another point to think about. Akanji ran past Rashford, so in that sequence of play, Cann's view of Rashford was blocked. How can Cann say definitively that Rashford didn't touch the ball? Answer - he can't. So maybe it should have gone to VAR after all.

However you look at this, it was a stitch up. And Cann is as much to blame as Attwell.

 

[Blueboy73]

And it's complete nonsense.

There are explanations in the existing laws that already cover the Rashford scenario. The following describe ways of interfering with an opponent:

1. Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

2. Challenging an opponent for the ball or

3. Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

4. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

On point 1, Rashford prevents Akanji from being able to play the ball, and he is in Akanji's line of vision.

Point 2 Rashford challenges Akanji and Walker for the ball.

Point 3 is true if Rashford is deemed to be playing the ball due to his proximity to it.

Point 4. His obvious action of running with the ball alters Akanji's route to the ball. Ask if Rashford had stayed still, would Akanji have had a more direct path to the ball, and been favourite to get to it before Fernandes.

And if all this wasn't enough, there are 14 examples laid down in the laws to help referees in their judgement of offsides. The ninth pretty much covers the Rashford scenario.

This isn't subjective at all. Subjective is just the word they use to make it sound as though Attwell was justified. It's damage limitation.

And in my view, Cann and Oliver are equally to blame.

Agree with virtually everything but to be fair to Cann, he raised his flag at the end of the phase to signal that correctly that it was offside.
Cann is the assistant and his role is to assist/advise the referee and he did this.
Attwell was the referee and chose to overrule/ignore his assistant and law 11.

 

[Blueboy73]

This is stretching things a bit. When was the last time you heard there was no offside because a certain player didn't touch the ball? The player in an offside position touching the ball is mentioned very briefly in the LOTG. There is much more emphasis on players interfering with play or interfering with an opponent.

They should be discussing together whether Rashford was interfering with play, not whether or not he touched the ball.

And here's another point to think about. Akanji ran past Rashford, so in that sequence of play, Cann's view of Rashford was blocked. How can Cann say definitively that Rashford didn't touch the ball? Answer - he can't. So maybe it should have gone to VAR after all.

However you look at this, it was a stitch up. And Cann is as much to blame as Attwell.

We don't know what Cann said to Attwell as officials are not miked up, they can do this for Rugby and Cricket so why not football?
If Cann said he (Fishfingers) didn't touch the ball then he's culpable but we will never know and PGMOL will close ranks to cover their arses if asked.
If Cann told Attwell he wasn't sure then it should have been referred but in all the smoke and mirrors, gaslighting and bullshit does anyone know whether VAR looked at this or provided any advice?