Referees’ Performances 2018/19

The mere fact that they've stolen a march on our high line to get into the box and influence Ederson's decision to punch the ball, is interfering with play.
If he spills that ball and it falls to the feet of the attacker that was fouled, is he then offside in a secondary faze?
It's bullshit. Getting ahead of our defender into an offside position is interfering with THAT play.

Not by the rules.
If the offside players would influence Ed from clearing the ball, it was interfering.

By moving a yard forward before the foul happened certainly is not meant as interering play.
 
Not by the rules.
If the offside players would influence Ed from clearing the ball, it was interfering.

By moving a yard forward before the foul happened certainly is not meant as interering play.
No not by the rules, but the rules are wrong. He is definitely interfering with play. As Shankley said; if hes's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the park.

I don't have a problem with making the rules favour a more open attacking game.
I do have a problem with having rules that are open to interpretation and not subjected to scrutiny over their consistency.
 
Yes, would have gone up and ruled out, as I said.
But before that could happen - the offside call - Fern's foul happened.

In our old understanding it would be offside first, then the foul.
Following passive offside it's vice versa:
the foul happened before the offside call.

I think this confusing rule isn't well understood and not obvious for people in the stands. That's a problem.

I agree with you.

Firstly it's about how close you are to the ball, not where you are in relation to the opponent.
Secondly, it's did you interfere with the opponent's movement.

Ederson is irrelevant to this, as the decision was that the attacker was not active before the foul.
 
No not by the rules, but the rules are wrong. He is definitely interfering with play. As Shankley said; if hes's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the park.

That's making nonsense of the meaning "interfering with play", some kind of strict juristic approach.
That would mean the Schalke keeper back in his box was interfering with play as well then? Hm.

I don't have a problem with making the rules favour a more open attacking game.
I do have a problem with having rules that are open to interpretation and not subjected to scrutiny over their consistency.

Agreed.
No idea what the game was without offside at all, but sometimes I think, why not?

In our situation playing the high line, I wonder if it really is too risky to play for offside consequently.
 
The problem with that law is that there's nothing to stop a referee from blowing the player offside and it's not a foul by Fern. He just has to pick one of the following conditions.
  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.
  • a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
  • an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
Was Sane moving from an offside position but in Fernandinho's way?
In an offside position but already attempting to play the ball before he was fouled?
In an offside position but fouled before attempting to play the ball?

The referee could have taken his pick in my opinion and been right whatever conclusion he came to.
Shit law. The wording in the second (foul awarded) scenario actually makes it necessary for Sane to have the intention of playing the ball if he is to be fouled. Ergo, the referee decided Sane intended to play the ball. Otherwise no foul is possible according to the words. So the referee decided his intention was to play the ball but he wasn't attempting to play the ball. Lewis Carroll must have written this law.
 
That's making nonsense of the meaning "interfering with play", some kind of strict juristic approach.
That would mean the Schalke keeper back in his box was interfering with play as well then? Hm.
Whatever about the Schalke keeper, but that's exactly my point.
They have already made a nonsense of the meaning of interfering with play. I haven't.
The rules seem to be subjective. One ref can justify it his way and another justify it differently next week.

Agreed.
No idea what the game was without offside at all, but sometimes I think, why not?

In our situation playing the high line, I wonder if it really is too risky to play for offside consequently.
I think the rules the way they were regarding offside i.e. you either are or your not are at least clear and far better than what we have now. VAR could be definitive about decisions without vague interpretation of each individual circumstance.
the same with hand ball. I believe they are thinking of changing it to something along the lines of; if you handle the ball on a goalbound trajectory, it is a foul whether intentional or not.
I'd support that. At least it's clear and not open to interpretation.
 
The problem with that law is that there's nothing to stop a referee from blowing the player offside and it's not a foul by Fern. He just has to pick one of the following conditions.
  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.
  • a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
  • an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
Was Sane moving from an offside position but in Fernandinho's way?
In an offside position but already attempting to play the ball before he was fouled?
In an offside position but fouled before attempting to play the ball?

The referee could have taken his pick in my opinion and been right whatever conclusion he came to.
Shit law. The wording in the second (foul awarded) scenario actually makes it necessary for Sane to have the intention of playing the ball if he is to be fouled. Ergo, the referee decided Sane intended to play the ball. Otherwise no foul is possible according to the words. So the referee decided his intention was to play the ball but he wasn't attempting to play the ball. Lewis Carroll must have written this law.

I think either or is about right.
The difference is the ref gives the foul, and the linesman gives the offside - as they are told to wait to see where the ball ends up, the ref would blow before the linesman flagged.
 
The problem with that law is that there's nothing to stop a referee from blowing the player offside and it's not a foul by Fern. He just has to pick one of the following conditions.
  • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.
  • a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
  • an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
Was Sane moving from an offside position but in Fernandinho's way?
In an offside position but already attempting to play the ball before he was fouled?
In an offside position but fouled before attempting to play the ball?

The referee could have taken his pick in my opinion and been right whatever conclusion he came to.
Shit law. The wording in the second (foul awarded) scenario actually makes it necessary for Sane to have the intention of playing the ball if he is to be fouled. Ergo, the referee decided Sane intended to play the ball. Otherwise no foul is possible according to the words. So the referee decided his intention was to play the ball but he wasn't attempting to play the ball. Lewis Carroll must have written this law.

QED
any decision can be defended by interpreting whatever rule suits after the fact, but everyone is left confused as to how to interpret them at the time.
 
Whatever about the Schalke keeper, but that's exactly my point.
They have already made a nonsense of the meaning of interfering with play. I haven't.
The rules seem to be subjective. One ref can justify it his way and another justify it differently next week.


I think the rules the way they were regarding offside i.e. you either are or your not are at least clear and far better than what we have now. VAR could be definitive about decisions without vague interpretation of each individual circumstance.
the same with hand ball. I believe they are thinking of changing it to something along the lines of; if you handle the ball on a goalbound trajectory, it is a foul whether intentional or not.
I'd support that. At least it's clear and not open to interpretation.

IFAB technical director Elleray about a reworded handball rules:
“It will significantly reduce the grey areas around handball... we will be identifying those areas where non-deliberate contact will be penalised and when it won’t be,” Elleray added.

“There will still be a reference to deliberate handball - there’s never been any discussion about getting rid of that, and any deliberate handball will be penalised in any situation.”

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-s...s-to-be-passed-next-week-report-idUKKCN1QB0I6
thankfully posted by @Pablo ZZZ Peroni on Schalke post match thread.

As much as I understand your hope for clear rules,
it would be horrible to reward ANY handball by a penalty!
Players would adapt and would try anything to hit some inch of an opponent arm to get a pk.
Worst case that.
 
As much as I understand your hope for clear rules,
it would be horrible to reward ANY handball by a penalty!
Players would adapt and would try anything to hit some inch of an opponent arm to get a pk.

Only the most skilful players would be able to do that with accuracy. We have the most skilful players :)
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.