The Martinelli goal was really odd. Can someone explain why that goal didn’t count? Ball was played back by the Everton defender, no? In the studio they were banging on about the intent of the Everton player but why does that even matter?
VAR and Refs | General Discussion | May 15: Premier League clubs to vote on proposal to scrap VAR from next season
- Thread starter Samid
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
Looks like Hawk-Eye is used for offside decisions as well
https://www.premierleague.com/news/1488423
You’re complete misunderstanding this.
The Everton defender's touch didn't count as a deliberate play of the ball. And it matters because the current offside rules draw a distinction between what they deem deliberate and non-deliberate touches in incidents like this.
Basically because they want to avoid goals like the below, which was allowed due to the defender's touch even though Mbappe was offside when the initial ball was played.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Under the new rules, that goal wouldn't stand.
Didn't Real have a goal ruled out against Liverpool in the CL final in 2022? The rule is actually ridiculous and just adds another layer of confusion. How the hell can refs prove whether or not someone deliberately played the ball or were in control?
Just make the rule that it's only offside if the last touch is off a player from the attacking team. We see enough goals ruled out for offside, I don't even care if United are on the receiving end, just let us have more goals to celebrate. If they're going to stick with VAR then the rules of football should be made as simple as possible, especially considering the people we have running the game.
Bring back air for offsides to bring some joy back into the game, punish every player for handball if their arm is over a certain height in relation to their body and don't try to guess whether or not it was intrntional and also tell refs to be brave enough to give indirect free kicks for obstruction. We see this so often in the penalty area where a foul that would be given anywhere else on the pitch isn't called because it would be 'too soft' to award a penalty for. A foul is a foul, shouldn't matter where it is on the pitch.
Misunderstanding what?
The rule as it is now is for me both sensible and easy to understand. There were far too many situations where oppositional players, on instinct, try to prevent balls from being played in behind and, according to the old rules, ended up playing oppositional players onside even though they were miles offside to begin with.
I don’t see why any of the below should be complicated to understand:
https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/
Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
passing the ball to a team-mate; or
gaining possession of the ball; or
clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).
If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.
The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
The ball was not moving quickly
The direction of the ball was not unexpected
The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
I'd say just put offside back to if a player is offside when the ball is played to them the flag goes up. Fcuk this shit of waiting for a defender to touch the ball and bring in a new phase of play or someone else running in for the ball. Also if someone is offside within the frame of the goal for a shot and it goes in, they are offside and that goal is ruled out.
There was never a daylight rule, it was just a rule of thumb or an unofficial guideline. But I think that this is the easiest way of doing it. VAR was never supposed to freezing frames and drawing lines on screens to prove someone was a toenail offside.
Handball was always intentional and there were much less controversial decisions about handball. Just bring back intent for handball, if you can't prove intent. It's not handball.
Hawkeye is the name of the company that produces the technology. They have various applications across various sports.
When people have been talking about Hawkeye in this thread, it’s in the context of goal line technology which calculates whether the ball crossed the line or not. So when people say that Hawkeye is used for the goal line only they’re obviously talking within the context on the discussion - the technology which determines if the ball has crossed the line. The EPL do not have Hawkeye technology to determine whether the ball crossed the line anywhere other than between the goal posts.
Citing another application for Hawkeye, offside, is just completely irrelevant. You might as well have said “actually they use Hawkeye in Tennis matches too”.
Bruh what are you talking about? This is what you responded to:
Goal line wasn't even mentioned.
Oh wow you’re still not understanding are you?
Looking at camera angles and making a decision isn’t “Hawkeye”. Hawkeye have various applications of technology which either augment or automate the decision process. Neither happened in this situation.
The cameras used to make the decisions might have been provided by Hawkeye but that’s like claiming “Sky technology” or “ESPN technology” was used to make these decisions. It’s just a couple of blokes squinting at their monitor making their best guess. There is no “Hawkeye technology” involved. If you still think there is you clearly have no understanding of what Hawkeye technology is.
I think I understand now. You don't want to admit Hawk-Eye isn't only used for goal line decisions, so now you are arguing semantics.
What do you think "they don't choose a random camera angle" means?
For out of bounds, I'm not sure, as I've already said, but this statement:
is wrong since it exists for offsides. Did you even read the link? It seems you don't have an idea what it is.
I give up. How is it possible to have this little comprehension?
Complete confusion on the disallowed Martinelli goal. As much as I can’t stand Arsenal, why was that disallowed?!
Games are truly being decided by nonsensical decisions.
When the nonsensical decision is at a crucial time, it often defines the result of the game.
United could be +/- 3 points depending on dubious circumstances.
When will this billion pound industry be brought to account on what are awful decisions game after game?
Games are truly being decided by nonsensical decisions.
When the nonsensical decision is at a crucial time, it often defines the result of the game.
United could be +/- 3 points depending on dubious circumstances.
When will this billion pound industry be brought to account on what are awful decisions game after game?
Arguing in bad faith for the sake of pride. It's okay to be wrong. I'm wrong all the time. You could have either not replied or just said "Oh I didn't know VAR used Hawk-Eye for offsides as well", but after a few posts of gaslighting and goalposting moving here we are.
I'm tired Robbie.
The Nelli goal or non goal as it turned out is just bizarre. The Everton player it comes off before making its way to Nketiah is actually in the Arsenal half. Intent or no intent I don't think you should be able to make an opponent offside from the other half. I am not actually sure what the rule is here but this doesn't really make sense. It's a weird one. Everton was very lucky anyway to get away with that.
I honestly don't see the grounds for confusion, and neither do i understand why the decision is supposedly nonsensical.
The rules:
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately played* the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
- passing the ball to a team-mate;
- gaining possession of the ball; or
- clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)
The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
- The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
- The ball was not moving quickly
- The direction of the ball was not unexpected
- The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
- A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
Considering the proximity to Gabriel when he attempts the pass, time he has to think, i think it's fairly straightforward to conclude that Beto's action is well outside the realm of deliberately playing the ball, and that it would be extremely harsh to consider Nketiah as onside simply because Beto tried to make an instinctive block on the half way line when the ball is being played in a completely different direction than towards Nketiah.
Offside should be the outcome in 10/10 similar situations.
Beto didn’t play Nketiah offside, he just didn’t play him onside…
I genuinely don’t think I could explain it to you any clearer than I already have. I’ve got zero interest in circular arguments, have a good day.
Agreed. It’s better the law now accounts for these situations rather than ignoring them like it did in the recent past.
because that would give the refs less influence on a game.
It wasn't even meant to be an argument. I was just sharing information, which I wasn't even aware of before, that Hawkeye is used in more than goal-line technology.
Instead of just accepting that you attempted to gaslight me for really no reason. I pushed back because I found it petty and didn't appreciate it. No circular argument. Cheers
I’m simply explaining that Hawkeye is not used for these decisions which is your original claim.
Yes, I suppose it makes sense within the rules of the game. I was pretty certain it would and VAR made the right call. I dont think you can argue that he was in control, that certainly was not the case, although to say there was no intent is a little different. Just because Beto did not get the ball where he wanted it to go, that doesn't mean he was not trying to block it..
It looks like he is getting rewarded for having made a partial block, because he blocks the ball from going to the intended target who was onside while fluking out an offside call on it actually going to the unintentional one. I suppose you need to look at this incident as if Beto was not there and the ball went straight to Nketiah.
Anyway, convinced it was the right call, but it still looks weird. I wish we could go back to the old days...offside was offside.
I already said I couldn't dispute that, but my original claim may be wrong.
I was only adding that Hawk-Eye is also used for offside decisions not just goal line, which is true.
What has that got to do with anything?
I was a little away by that point but did a challenge system was considered by FIFA / UEFA ?
I believe US Baseball has 1 (most games) or 2 (playoff tiebreakers) challenges for each manager. If the challenge is successful, they keep it for later in the game, otherwise it is spent. Manager has 30 seconds to challenge (teams are allowed to have their own replay room to review plays and identify what they want to challenge) and the video review cannot exceed two minutes.
Something like that and keeping the cases covered to a clear, narrow list would help limiting a tendency to overuse VAR and second guess everything in slow motion.
I believe US Baseball has 1 (most games) or 2 (playoff tiebreakers) challenges for each manager. If the challenge is successful, they keep it for later in the game, otherwise it is spent. Manager has 30 seconds to challenge (teams are allowed to have their own replay room to review plays and identify what they want to challenge) and the video review cannot exceed two minutes.
Something like that and keeping the cases covered to a clear, narrow list would help limiting a tendency to overuse VAR and second guess everything in slow motion.
Rules is rules. But I think they've made the offside rule so ridiculously complex and open to interpretation that even the officials are confused sometimes.
I genuinely don't think that Martinelli goal should be offside. It's a situation that happens maybe a handful of times a season.
Original pass is not going in Nketiah's direction and the Everton player deliberately sticks a leg out to affect the direction of the ball. If it goes to an Arsenal player 40 yards away who just so happens to be in an offside position, then that's just bad luck. He shouldn't be offside because his player hasn't played him the ball.
No way. That is how the VAR refs help out their on field buddies. They take ridiculous decisions and use the "clear and obvious" card.
No way in hell should that Burnley goal have been disallowed. Absolute shambles. Compare this to that Boro goal that was allowed at Old Trafford & you just have to be amazed at how this sport is refereed now
The challenge system will work if VAR is really independent. But if VAR refs take decisions like Dean did, then it makes it moot.
Besides the rules should be very clear. They have made a mess of the handball and offside rules with so much ambiguity. And giving refs power to interpret and make up their own rules.
The challenge system would surely make the VAR redundant? It'll replace the VAR with a pure video technician, and then the challenge would force the ref to review the incident on the pitchside monitor. That would also mean removing the "clear and obvious" threshold that is causing so much hassle with the entire system in terms of not getting the "more correct" decisions which is what we want. The selectivity of when that clear and obvious threshold is met, which varies wildly from game to game, is another source of feelings of injustice and frustration. It would just need the ref on the pitch, who made the original call, to feel that the evidence provided by the video technician suggests that x is the more correct call in his opinion based on how he's decided to ref the game on that particular day.
Thank you for this explanation. I obviously knew about the deliberate play exception; I didn't know exactly how deliberate play was defined.
Watching the game (albeit with my admittedly red and white eyes), I saw Gabriel bring the ball down, and either attempt a short sideways pass, or cut back across Neto, controlling the ball to himself (I think the latter is more likely). Either way, too much of the ball was shown to Neto, who took his chance to hoof the ball, well, just about anywhere, including the place it ended up. That is, to my eye, this wasn't a case of Gabriel blasting the ball into Neto and it ricochetting somewhere strange and unintended, it was a case of Neto deliberately playing the ball and sending it himself somewhere he didn't intend. So I thought it was deliberate play.
With your explanation, particularly the clarification that to engage in deliberate play requires the player to be in control of the ball, it is the correct call. It still seems to violate the spirit of an offside law with a deliberate play exception--Neto did make a deliberate (in the common, not rules, sense) play on a loose ball, and by the time he did so, Nketiah was even already back onside; he was only marginally off measuring from Gabriel's last touch. Note that if Neto had managed to smash the ball into Gabriel's knee instead of hooking it backwards and the ball ended up in the same place--an equally likely occurrence in that challenge--Nketiah would have been onside. This is not the scenario the offside law was designed to address.
But if that's the way the rules are written, it's 100% correct. (Not going to budge off my opinion that the authorities need to go back and revisit the offside law in light of both how the modern game is played and the fact that we're apparently going to measure it with VAR micrometers. And fix handball to be less stupidly arbitrary while they are at it).
How is it ridiculously complex though? I just don’t see it as complex at all. VAR makes things somewhat complicated, mostly frustrating, because of the guidelines in place, we’ve gone from focusing on getting the decisions as correct as possible to focusing on if VAR should intervene or not based on clear and obvious, the rules themselves (and especially for offside) are hardly complex. Pundits will probably insist it is, but what isn’t complicated for them.
The handball rule isn’t complex either, it’s just a complete disaster because they have two completely different interpretations based on attacking vs defending, but that’s a different matter and most definetely a rule that should be completely revamped so that both scenarios are based on the standard criterias for interpreting if it’s a punishable offense or not.
Nketiah is already offside based on his position, but we’re debating if it becomes punishable when he gets the ball or if the ball going via an opponent should play him onside. If you open up the door to allow goals like this then we’re back to the same problem ref Mbappe vs Spain in the nations league. For me, personally, i think it’s an easy offside decision. Yes, Beto intentionally sticks his leg out in order to win the ball on the half way line, it’s an instinctive reaction to the ball being played close to him, i see no reason why being hit on the shin when sticking your leg out trying to win possession should be considered playing someone onside, no matter where you are on the pitch.
I am questioning the rule or lack of one, thought that was fairly clear. We could technically have the goalie kick towards the right side of the pitch and an incoming player try to nick it and end up ompletely shifting it to the left side of the pitch causing an offside there. That is tough luck in my opinion. There is an uncertainty where the ball is going when you attempt a block just like a block on a shot on goal.
Not debating whether or not it was the right call by VAR
Which has nothing to do with what half of the pitch the ball it was in?
Hasn't this always been offside though? If anything, the current rule makes a lot of situations that would have been offside previously onside. This situation might have been hard to catch without VAR though, but it has always been offside.
I’d say the spirit of the offside rule is to ensure players standing in offside positions don’t gain an advantage from being in that position. To me the only outcome that meets that test is disallowing the goal.
They could apply more nuance to the definition of being in control of the play. I’m not convinced that referees would be able to interpret that consistently well though. And in the meantime I’d rather we err on the safe side rather than the impossible scenario where that Mbappe goal was allowed against Spain.
By adding all that wording and different phases of play and all the active/inactive players. It also complicates the decision making procedure and puts in wording like control and distance etc. It's like handball that means referees can interpret the rules differently from game ro game.
We've already seen goals like that one allowed, disallowed and argued over. How is the referee/linesman supposed to consider all of the below in a short space of time and come up with the right call every time.
*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:
- passing the ball to a team-mate;
- gaining possession of the ball; or
- clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it)
The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, can be considered to have ‘deliberately played’ the ball:
- The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
- The ball was not moving quickly
- The direction of the ball was not unexpected
- The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
- A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air
Sticking a foot out is deliberately playing the ball, if the last touch comes of an opposition player you're not offside, it should be as simple as that.
Last edited:
I'm not 100% sure, from playing over the years I've had loads of instance where the referee would say "the last touch came of your player, he's not offside". That seems to have changed in the last few years.
Didn't we get a goal ruled offside in the 05 fa cup final where it came off an Arsenal player? Weird reference i know. 