Refs & VAR 2020/2021 Discussion

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,187
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
You say straight forward when all of us discussing this are as stupid as each other. We have no idea how easy or hard it is and being dumb about it doesnt put it in doubt.
World football isnt judging offsides by cms because its unreliable.
All you're literally saying here is no it isnt to everything thats explained to you. Either research it or don't. Everything is out there for you find. You can start here
There is literally nothing in there about frame rate. I don't doubt that the lines are drawn correctly on a given frame, the issue is the choice of frame matters hugely and it's a massive problem that's overlooked.
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,506
There is literally nothing in there about frame rate. I don't doubt that the lines are drawn correctly on a given frame, the issue is the choice of frame matters hugely and it's a massive problem that's overlooked.
It's not a massive problem, nor is it overlooked.
 

cyberman

Full Member
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
23,365
There is literally nothing in there about frame rate. I don't doubt that the lines are drawn correctly on a given frame, the issue is the choice of frame matters hugely and it's a massive problem that's overlooked.
Because its sorted, non factor. Its something fans picked up and wont let it go. The same way fans pretend the lines on the screen matter.
The conversation has gone on from reliability to being so accurate that its not healthy for the game to flag for offsides on mm calls. If frame rate was a problem, we would be told it was a problem.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,187
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
It's not a massive problem, nor is it overlooked.
Because its sorted, non factor. Its something fans picked up and wont let it go. The same way fans pretend the lines on the screen matter.
The conversation has gone on from reliability to being so accurate that its not healthy for the game to flag for offsides on mm calls. If frame rate was a problem, we would be told it was a problem.
Genuinely I don't see how this is a non-issue when it happened in the FA Cup final. The ball had clearly left Silva's foot in the frame they chose.

Also, given how calamitous VAR has been in general, do you really think they'd disclose problems with it?
 

UncleBob

Full Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2014
Messages
4,506
Genuinely I don't see how this is a non-issue when it happened in the FA Cup final. The ball had clearly left Silva's foot in the frame they chose.

Also, given how calamitous VAR has been in general, do you really think they'd disclose problems with it?
Because it's fundamentally an improvement. Doesn't matter if it's in a cup final or not.
Is it accurate enough to get every mm decision correct? nope, but it's still an overall improvement on how it used to be and it's the closest you get to a objective decision that's also repeatable.

Under todays rules, this is the best you get. If you increase the tolerances you're still arguing cm decisions.

Offside isn't close to being VAR's biggest problem anyway. The referees are VAR's biggest problem, like how a certain West Ham player got sent off against Chelsea. How one day you're allowed to plant your hand in the face of the oppositions goalkeeper to prevent him from getting the ball, while the next day you're not allowed to win a fair header against a goalkeeper. Cover the defenders face with your hand and score from a header, no problem.

Chris Kavanagh gets decisions so badly wrong, even with the benefit of watching x amount of replays, and there's no real consequence. David Coote? It's incompetence, get rid of them
 

Speedy30

Liverpool Fan
Joined
Feb 25, 2013
Messages
1,398
Location
On the Kop
Supports
Liverpool
His line of sight wasn't blocked because the ball was high in the air at the time it was flicked on - meaning that Alisson could clearly see it.

With regards the brainfart by Dean for allowing a freekick instead of an uncontested dropball, and it should have been disallowed by VAR because of the error.

If we're going to allow the referee's to change the rules during the game, then why not just let them award corners when it goes out for throwings etc.

It was a clear mistake by Dean and VAR should have disallowed the goal.

Farce.
How do you know that Alisson could 'clearly' see it? There was an attacking player stood offside right in front of him. If that's not interfering with play, then I don't know what is.
As for the drop ball, yeah it was a mistake. Shockingly, just like players, refs make them too!
 

nemanja15

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Amidst those squeaky bums.
There's an important nuance to the Alisson thing that a lot are overlooking here. It's not just a simply being in the 'line of sight' thing... rather, the key issue is a presence of an opponent which may impact on the ability to see or play the ball. Whether it's possible for a save to be made is irrelevant, and this application has been pretty consistent over the last couple of seasons with offsides.

It's also written in to law and has been there a while, pre-dating VAR. A classic case of little-known laws being correctly applied now, because they can be enforced with greater scrutiny, but such flashpoints very quickly turn into referee-bashing nowadays because to do so is on trend.
 

TheMagicFoolBus

Full Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2016
Messages
3,187
Location
Lisboa, Portugal
Supports
Chelsea
Because it's fundamentally an improvement. Doesn't matter if it's in a cup final or not.
Is it accurate enough to get every mm decision correct? nope, but it's still an overall improvement on how it used to be and it's the closest you get to a objective decision that's also repeatable.

Under todays rules, this is the best you get. If you increase the tolerances you're still arguing cm decisions.

Offside isn't close to being VAR's biggest problem anyway. The referees are VAR's biggest problem, like how a certain West Ham player got sent off against Chelsea. How one day you're allowed to plant your hand in the face of the oppositions goalkeeper to prevent him from getting the ball, while the next day you're not allowed to win a fair header against a goalkeeper. Cover the defenders face with your hand and score from a header, no problem.

Chris Kavanagh gets decisions so badly wrong, even with the benefit of watching x amount of replays, and there's no real consequence. David Coote? It's incompetence, get rid of them
I agree that the refs themselves are by far the biggest problem - I suppose I fundamentally disagree that VAR is generally an improvement. I personally would argue that a system that has "objective" standards mixed in with judgement calls is poorly designed and should be binned.

I keep saying this but for me the solution is to just get rid of freeze framing and slow motion - these are completely different ways of looking at the game and for me aren't necessarily reflective of the spirit of the laws. People wanted VAR to overturn egregious errors - the types that are visible at normal speed.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,725
There's an important nuance to the Alisson thing that a lot are overlooking here. It's not just a simply being in the 'line of sight' thing... rather, the key issue is a presence of an opponent which may impact on the ability to see or play the ball. Whether it's possible for a save to be made is irrelevant, and this application has been pretty consistent over the last couple of seasons with offsides.

It's also written in to law and has been there a while, pre-dating VAR. A classic case of little-known laws being correctly applied now, because they can be enforced with greater scrutiny, but such flashpoints very quickly turn into referee-bashing nowadays because to do so is on trend.
Correct.

It also doesn't matter if the goalkeeper can see the ball over the player's head. The offside player is still standing directly in his line of vision, which may impact his ability to play the ball. Because having to look past the offside player directly in front of him might impact his judgement or decision making in terms of reacting to the header. Even being a factor the goalkeeper has to consider in that situation is enough.

It's a very straightforward call, which is why it barely took any time to make. You can't be standing dead centre in front of a goalkeeper in between him and the ball and not possibly impact his decision making.
 

Shane88

Actually Nostradamus
Joined
Jan 12, 2011
Messages
29,935
Location
Targaryen loyalist
Absolutely zero media coverage of any of the questionable decisions in the West Brom game, almost like it suits them. Sssshhhhhhhh
If I was Tuchel I'd go full Benitez in the press conference, ask why is a ref from Liverpool officiating Liverpool games etc.

Take the fine for "bringing the game into disrepute" but it puts pressure on the refs for the next two games.
 

nemanja15

Full Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
4,354
Location
Amidst those squeaky bums.
The point is he was nowhere near the ball and never at any time was prevented from playing the ball.
You've just selectively forgotten bits of my first post then? The presence of an opponent which may impact on the ability to see or play the ball. Whether it's physically possible for a save to be made, or whether he definitely can or definitely cannot see the ball is irrelevant. The goalkeeper is standing in the goal. The ball goes in the goal. Ergo his decision-making may have been impacted in doing anything about that.
 

Bullhitter

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
734
Location
in the opposite direction of crowds
Supports
Chelsea
If I was Tuchel I'd go full Benitez in the press conference, ask why is a ref from Liverpool officiating Liverpool games etc.

Take the fine for "bringing the game into disrepute" but it puts pressure on the refs for the next two games.
Mike Dean is a Tranmere fan mate which means he can't have any links at all to Liverpool obviously. The same as Anthony Taylor is an Altrincham fan...
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
10,939
You've just selectively forgotten bits of my first post then? The presence of an opponent which may impact on the ability to see or play the ball. Whether it's physically possible for a save to be made, or whether he definitely can or definitely cannot see the ball is irrelevant. The goalkeeper is standing in the goal. The ball goes in the goal. Ergo his decision-making may have been impacted in doing anything about that.
Going by that though then we’ll be back to the old offside law where any player in an offside position has to be called offside, as the keeper can just state that any player, including the one standing in an offside position, could have received the ball at any time, even if by the touchline, and as such may have impacted his decision making. This guy, going by the evidence, had absolutely no impact on Alisson’s decision making since he saw the header, adequately reacted to it and had no impact on any event that unfolded.

What I’m saying is that if no account is taken into whether the goalkeeper was affected, merely if he could have been affected, then any goal can be chalked off for offside if the keeper’s good enough at arguing his case, despite reacting in a way as if the player wasn’t there.
 

Bullhitter

Full Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2019
Messages
734
Location
in the opposite direction of crowds
Supports
Chelsea
Going by that though then we’ll be back to the old offside law where any player in an offside position has to be called offside, as the keeper can just state that any player, including the one standing in an offside position, could have received the ball at any time, even if by the touchline, and as such may have impacted his decision making. This guy, going by the evidence, had absolutely no impact on Alisson’s decision making since he saw the header, adequately reacted to it and had no impact on any event that unfolded.

What I’m saying is that if no account is taken into whether the goalkeeper was affected, merely if he could have been affected, then any goal can be chalked off for offside if the keeper’s good enough at arguing his case, despite reacting in a way as if the player wasn’t there.
I said it earlier. Alisson drew no attention to Phillips in his protests which clearly shows he was not impeded by him being there at all. He only pointed at Bartley in case the officials thought the header had gone in untouched for them to check if Bartley was offside.

That should have decided it. If a keeper thinks a player is remotely in their vision you can be sure as hell that's their first go-to.
 

The Oracle

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
444
How do you know that Alisson could 'clearly' see it? There was an attacking player stood offside right in front of him. If that's not interfering with play, then I don't know what is.
As for the drop ball, yeah it was a mistake. Shockingly, just like players, refs make them too!


This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.

It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,664


This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.

It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
That player offside there is neither impeding the goalkeepers view of the ball or impeding him trying to play the ball
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,725
Il


This is how I know that Alisson could clearly see the ball.

It was a shocking decision to disallow the goal.
Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.

Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:



In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball and nobody was arguing that he couldn't. And obviously Phillips is even more obviously in the line of sight in this case given he's actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.

Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can or can't fully or partially see the ball over the top of or to the side of the offside player.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,664
Il


Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.

Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:



In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball. And obviously Phillips is even more so in this case.

Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can see the ball to the side of the offside player.
That’s a totally different situation where the player in front of the keeper is directly in line of sight of the shot and even had to move. It’s obviously offside.

if the everton player squared it to a team mate who then passed it into the net that would be a similar situation. And it would have stood as a goal
 

Anustart89

Full Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
10,939
Il


Seeing the ball is irrelevant, as the player doesn't have to be blocking his view of the ball. He has to be in his line of sight, which he is. He literally has to look past him to see the header as the offside players is standing directly in front of him.

Similarly when Everton had a goal disallowed against United, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight despite De Gea obviously being able to see over him:



In the Everton case Siggy also took a deliberate action that counted against him, but the key point for this comparison is that he was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight even though he could see the ball and nobody was arguing that he couldn't. And obviously Phillips is even more obviously in the line of sight in this case given he's actually standing in front of the goalkeeper.

Because obviously the rules aren't going to discriminate against taller goalkeepers who might be able to see over the opponent, or get into analysing whether a goalkeeper can or can't fully or partially see the ball over the top of or to the side of the offside player.
Those two situations are in no way similar. You would’ve had a point if the header had gone through the legs of the offside player who jumped out of the way in the last second.

Your position is that if the Everton player had crossed it to the back post for a header and de Gea couldn’t make it across to save it that it should’ve been disallowed for offside anyway which is a ridiculous stance.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,725
That’s a totally different situation where the player in front of the keeper is directly in line of sight of the shot and even had to move. It’s obviously offside.

if the everton player squared it to a team mate who then passed it into the net that would be a similar situation. And it would have stood as a goal
It doesn't just count when he's in the way of a shot, just as if someone is deemed to be "interfering with play" it doesn't only count if they're doing so when the ball is shot.

In this case they're judging the line of sight from the moment of the header, in the same way the line of sight was judged from the moment of the shot in the Everton example. And in both cases the offside player is standing in the goalkeeper's line of vision.

You're right that Siggurdson had the extra wrinkle of also taking a deliberate action to avoid the ball but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that in both cases the player was deemed to be in the goalkeeper's line of vision despite the goalkeeper being able to see the ball.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
You've just selectively forgotten bits of my first post then? The presence of an opponent which may impact on the ability to see or play the ball. Whether it's physically possible for a save to be made, or whether he definitely can or definitely cannot see the ball is irrelevant. The goalkeeper is standing in the goal. The ball goes in the goal. Ergo his decision-making may have been impacted in doing anything about that.
Explain how it was impacted? Could he get to the header? No. Did the player in front of him therefore prevent him from playing the ball? No. If you explain how it would unfold differently without Phillips there then I could maybe see where you’re coming from.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,725
Those two situations are in no way similar. You would’ve had a point if the header had gone through the legs of the offside player who jumped out of the way in the last second.

Your position is that if the Everton player had crossed it to the back post for a header and de Gea couldn’t make it across to save it that it should’ve been disallowed for offside anyway which is a ridiculous stance.
The fact that the ball went through Siggurdson is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

In this case people are arguing that Phillips can't have been in the line of sight of the goalkeeper as the goalkeeper could still see the ball. In the Everton/United example, Siggurdson was deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight at the moment of that picture despite De Gea obviously being able to see the ball. Ergo, being able to see the ball doesn't mean the player isn't in the goalkeeper's line of vision. This is also reflected in multiple other similar incidents where they don't get into analysing whether or not the goalkeeper could see the ball over/around/through the offside player in front of him. If they're in the direct line of vision, that's enough.

The fact that Siggy then also took deliberate action once the ball came towards him is separate to that point.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
if the everton player squared it to a team mate who then passed it into the net that would be a similar situation. And it would have stood as a goal
This is the point that anyone saying it’s the right decision is completely ignoring. I can’t think of a single example of a goal being disallowed for somebody being in the keepers line of sight on the pass before a completely different player scored a goal.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
The fact that the ball went through Siggurdson is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

In this case people are arguing that Phillips can't have been in the line of sight of the goalkeeper as the goalkeeper could still see the ball. In the Everton/United example, Siggurdson was also deemed to be in De Gea's line of sight in that picture despite De Gea obviously being able to see the ball. Ergo, being able to see the ball doesn't mean the player isn't in the goalkeeper's line of vision. In both these cases (and others) that was deemed to be the case.

The fact that Siggy then also took deliberate action once the ball came towards him is separate to that point.
But as you’ve pointed out, De Gea’s decision is impacted by the player stepping over the ball because it could be deflected at any moment. That was not the case for the West Brom goal so it is not remotely similar.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,664
It doesn't just count when he's in the way of a shot, just as if someone is deemed to be "interfering with play" it doesn't only count if they're doing so when the ball is shot.

In this case they're judging the line of sight from the moment of the header, in the same way the line of sight was judged from the moment of the shot in the Everton example. And in both cases the offside player is standing in the goalkeeper's line of vision.

You're right that Siggurdson had the extra wrinkle of also taking a deliberate action to avoid the ball but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that in both cases the player was deemed to be in the goalkeeper's line of vision despite the goalkeeper being able to see the ball.
It doesn't just count when he's in the way of a shot, just as if someone is deemed to be "interfering with play" it doesn't only count if they're doing so when the ball is shot.

In this case they're judging the line of sight from the moment of the header, in the same way the line of sight was judged from the moment of the shot in the Everton example. And in both cases the offside player is standing in the goalkeeper's line of vision.

You're right that Siggurdson had the extra wrinkle of also taking a deliberate action to avoid the ball but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making, which is that in both cases the player was deemed to be in the goalkeeper's line of vision despite the goalkeeper being able to see the ball.
Are these the rules about it being a shot on goal or just a pass just how you are reading them? Genuinely curious as I see the situations totally different if you’re saying it’s the same as the everton decision due to the rules. I thought everton was offside because sigurdson clearly got in the way and had to move. You are saying any kind of assist square there or cross to back post instead of a shot and goal would be ruled out and I just can’t see that.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,632
Those two situations are in no way similar. You would’ve had a point if the header had gone through the legs of the offside player who jumped out of the way in the last second.
It’s amazing the way people argue sometimes. The two incidents are very much similar in a myriad of fecking aspects. Both passive offsides, both standing directly in the line of sight, the keeper can still see the ball, despite the player being directly in his line of sight.

The fact that they are not identical is not an argument against them being similar.
“In no way similar” is a barking mad thing to say about those two incidents.
 

Zlatan 7

We've got bush!
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,664
It’s amazing the way people argue sometimes. The two incidents are very much similar in a myriad of fecking aspects. Both passive offsides, both standing directly in the line of sight, the keeper can still see the ball, despite the player being directly in his line of sight.

The fact that they are not identical is not an argument against them being similar.
“In no way similar” is a barking mad thing to say about those two incidents.
They’re similar but totally different
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
It’s amazing the way people argue sometimes. The two incidents are very much similar in a myriad of fecking aspects. Both passive offsides, both standing directly in the line of sight, the keeper can still see the ball, despite the player being directly in his line of sight.

The fact that they are not identical is not an argument against them being similar.
“In no way similar” is a barking mad thing to say about those two incidents.
Well one is a shot that a player has to move out of the way of before it goes in and clearly impacts a keepers ability to position himself when he was no idea if the player in the offside position will deflect the ball. The other one is a pass to a different player who then shoots. The appropriate freeze frame to use would be the shot in both instances. One would have a player in the keepers line of vision and one wouldn’t.
 

Ekkie Thump

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
2,553
Supports
Leeds United
It’s amazing the way people argue sometimes. The two incidents are very much similar in a myriad of fecking aspects. Both passive offsides, both standing directly in the line of sight, the keeper can still see the ball, despite the player being directly in his line of sight.

The fact that they are not identical is not an argument against them being similar.
“In no way similar” is a barking mad thing to say about those two incidents.
If instead of shooting the Everton player crosses it to the back post and an onside player nods it in is it still offside?
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
If instead of shooting the Everton player crosses it to the back post and an onside player nods it in is it still offside?
Of course it wouldn’t be. De Gea’s ability to play the ball wouldn’t have been impacted by the player on the ground. Just like Allison’s wasn’t.
 

Ekkie Thump

Full Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2013
Messages
2,553
Supports
Leeds United
Of course it wouldn’t be. De Gea’s ability to play the ball wouldn’t have been impacted by the player on the ground. Just like Allison’s wasn’t.
That's where I'm at, but I might just misunderstand the law.
 

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
That's where I'm at, but I might just misunderstand the law.
If you weren’t right then surely we’d have other examples of goals being disallowed for somebody being in a players line of sight before a pass to a different player.
 

sullydnl

Ross Kemp's caf ID
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
24,725
But as you’ve pointed out, De Gea’s decision is impacted by the player stepping over the ball because it could be deflected at any moment. That was not the case for the West Brom goal so it is not remotely similar.
Yes, but that's a separate point that isn't relevant to the line of sight argument, which is what I was using the Siggurdson to illustrate. They're two very different incidents, so the point of the comparison was just to show how line of sight is determined.

To your point though, let's imagine that instead of going through Siggy the ball instead went to one of his teammates at the back post who scored. The referee/VAR would at that point have to decide whether Siggy's presence in an offside position had interfered with De Gea's ability to play the ball. However, it is always a subjective decision. They might decide that because the ball travelled the entire way across the box to the back post, De Gea was in fact unimpeded in his attempt to play the ball. Or they might not. And other refs might or might not decide differently.

Relating that to the West Brom/Liverpool goal, it is also a subjective decision they have to make. However, in this instance they were unlikely to decide that the goal should be allowed to stand and extremely unlikely to overturn the decision to disallow it.

The key reason for this is what we mean by the offside player impacting the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball. If the offside player's presence means that the goalkeeper's ability to see the ball, or ability to judge the situation, or ability to making a decision, or ability to react may have been (as distinct from was) impacted by the player standing directly in-between him and the ball, that's enough for the goal to be disallowed. It doesn't matter if the offside player had no impact on what he physically did, it doesn't matter if the goal would have been scored anyway.

To put it another way: if having to look past Phillips to see the ball might have intruded even slightly on the goalkeeper's reading of what was happening front of him (even just as the most minute of distractions), the goal can be disallowed, as his ability to attempt to play the ball has been impacted (because his decision/judgement/reaction has been impacted).

And it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that at the moment of the header, when the goalkeeper is unsure where the ball is going, that the offside player he was having to look past to see the ball can't have been even a slight factor in his assessment of what was happening in front of him. He had to be aware of him, because he was standing directly between him and the ball.
 
Last edited:

Harry190

Full Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
6,135
Location
Canada
The Sigurdsson one wasn't line of vision. It was his involvement when he moved out of the way and was in the trajectory of the ball.

Can't have it both ways. Line of vision only carries weight when it impacts 'clearly' as stated in 11.2.

If the player moves, he is an active component in the action.

Can't have the old and the new at the same time.
 

Moonwalker

Full Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2009
Messages
3,632
Well one is a shot that a player has to move out of the way of before it goes in and clearly impacts a keepers ability to position himself when he was no idea if the player in the offside position will deflect the ball. The other one is a pass to a different player who then shoots. The appropriate freeze frame to use would be the shot in both instances. One would have a player in the keepers line of vision and one wouldn’t.
That's absolutely not the appropriate freeze frame in both instances, because it's not the first time the ball is played towards someone in an offside position, whether it was a shot or a pass is irrelevant. To demand it be judged on the shot is pointless. It can be a shot, it can be a pass, or it can be a deflection, the important bit is the player standing in an offside position, and whether he's interfering with play or not. Not least so because the header that ended up being a pass could have just as well been a shot. You have no way of knowing where the ball is gonna go as a keeper, and you have to position yourself in part according to the players around you.

If you understand the keepers ability to play the ball as his decision making process, players in such close proximity will always affect that, whether the keeper was able to save the shot in some alternative universe or not.
 
Last edited:

acnumber9

Full Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Messages
18,322
Yes, but that's a separate point that isn't relevant to the line of sight argument, which is what I was using the Siggurdson to illustrate. They're two very different incidents, so the point of the comparison was just to show how line of sight is determined.

To your point though, let's imagine that instead of going through Siggy the ball instead went to one of his teammates at the back post who scored. The referee/VAR would at that point have to decide whether Siggy's presence in an offside position had interfered with De Gea's ability to play the ball. However, it is always a subjective decision. They might decide that because the ball travelled the entire way across the box to the back post, De Gea was in fact unimpeded in his attempt to play the ball. Or they might not. And other refs might or might not decide differently.

Relating that to the West Brom/Liverpool goal, it is also a subjective decision they have to make. However, in this instance they were unlikely to decide that the goal should be allowed to stand and extremely unlikely to overturn the decision to disallow it.

The key reason for this is what we mean by the offside player impacting the goalkeeper's ability to play the ball. If the offside player's presence means that the goalkeeper's ability to see the ball, or ability to judge the situation, or ability to making a decision, or ability to react may have been (as distinct from was) impacted by the player standing directly in-between him and the ball, that's enough for the goal to be disallowed. It doesn't matter if the offside player had no impact on what he physically did, it doesn't matter if the goal would have been scored anyway.

To put it another way: if having to look past Phillips to see the ball might have intruded even slightly on the goalkeeper's reading of what was happening front of him (even just as the most minute of distractions), the goal can be disallowed, as his ability to attempt to play the ball has been impacted (because his decision/judgement/reaction has been impacted).

And it would be extremely difficult for anyone to argue that at the moment of the header, when the goalkeeper is unsure where the ball is going, that the offside player he was having to look past to see the ball can't have been even a slight factor in his assessment of what was happening in front of him. He had to be aware of him, because he was standing directly between him and the ball.
It is a subjective decision. Which is why you were wrong to say that anyone thinking it was onside was wrong.

When it comes to a subjective decision it’s reasonable to ask why somebody thinks he was impacted and give a reasonable reason of how he was prevented from playing the ball. I haven’t seen anybody do that. It can be done for the Everton example you’ve used.