Standard of Referees (Sponsored by Steven Reid)

[Gyros Peter]

Was it a correct call with the offside goal?
Was at the game annd it was a bit bemusing and haven’t seen a replay anywhere.

Think so, Yates was off (on the line) when the shot came in and regardless of a deflection he was interfering with the keeper.

 

[Redemption]

On this thread, and in related discussion about offside and interfering, a lot of posters say we should return to the old offside rules and forget the interfering or not aspects

For Taiwo's goal, was Elanga offside under the old rules? He was in an offside position when Nico played the cutting pass and when Awoniyi dribble forward.

Is this the example of why linos keep the flag down?

 

[GOBIAS]

There was a player clearly on the line between the posts who couldn't be more offside.

I thought it was the right call, and would be slightly teed off (see Newcastle's 2nd) if it was given as a goal against us.

If you're in the area at a set piece or similar situation you're in play and taking up the defence's resources even if you're not touching it.

I think that point was the only reason why some on here at the time would have allowed it - that the player didn't score the goal nor did he assist it or play the ball in the run up to it.

Again I totally agree that goal was rightly chalked off. But I see other things and they rule the opposite. A lot of the penalties given now for either handball or these slight brushes in my head aren’t penalties either and I’d be happy with that situation but there is extreme inconsistency on ones they give and ones they don’t. I’m not on about the Neco one yesterday either, that wasn’t a brush it was a penalty without question.

 

[Notcher]

On this thread, and in related discussion about offside and interfering, a lot of posters say we should return to the old offside rules and forget the interfering or not aspects

For Taiwo's goal, was Elanga offside under the old rules? He was in an offside position when Nico played the cutting pass and when Awoniyi dribble forward.


View attachment 34370

Yes that would have been called offside under the old rules.

It's one of the few changes they've got right in my opinion. I remember goals being disallowed because there were players offside on the opposite side of the pitch that never went within 40 yards of the play or the goal. It was ridiculous to have those goals chalked off.

 

[GOBIAS]

On this thread, and in related discussion about offside and interfering, a lot of posters say we should return to the old offside rules and forget the interfering or not aspects

For Taiwo's goal, was Elanga offside under the old rules? He was in an offside position when Nico played the cutting pass and when Awoniyi dribble forward.


View attachment 34370

I don’t think people have an issue with situations like that when even the linesman can see the ball isn’t played anywhere near him. But if they are tussling with a defender in the vicinity of the ball or clearly getting in the way then it should be. I’m thinking the Rashford one v Man City or even for me the Newcastle one last week where the lad miles offside was preventing Murillo (I think) from competing for the ball freely. Or indeed the yates one yesterday.

 

[GOBIAS]

Also the intentional / non intentional touch bollocks!!

 

[Notcher]

Also the intentional / non intentional touch bollocks!!

I agree, it just adds more subjectivity to everything. The simplest solution is to make the handball rule so that anything that touches an arm or hand in the 6 yard box is a penalty, deliberate or not. Anything in the remainder of the penalty area can still be called based on whether there was a deliberate motion. You have to have that element to stop attacking players then intentionally flicking the ball up into the defenders hands to win a penalty. However there's less chance of that being attempted in the 6 yard box where there's obviously a much better opportunity of scoring

 

[adam09]

I agree, it just adds more subjectivity to everything. The simplest solution is to make the handball rule so that anything that touches an arm or hand in the 6 yard box is a penalty, deliberate or not. Anything in the remainder of the penalty area can still be called based on whether there was a deliberate motion. You have to have that element to stop attacking players then intentionally flicking the ball up into the defenders hands to win a penalty. However there's less chance of that being attempted in the 6 yard box where there's obviously a much better opportunity of scoring

But then you could have a situation where a defender stood on the corner of the 6 yard box, nowhere near the goal and a shot going wide brushes his hand and you'd be saying that's a penalty. Or what if the ball is kicked backwards and the defender is on the edge of the 6 yard box? Ball could be heading for the halfway line, you can't give penalties for that!

A penalty should be for clearly stopping a goal or an attacker who is about to shoot or score.

 

[Notcher]

But then you could have a defender stood on the corner of the 6 yard box, nowhere near the goal and a shot going wide brushes his hand and you'd be saying that's a penalty.

A penalty should be for clearly stopping a goal or an attacker who is about to shoot or score.

That's what you've got to decide on. Do you want to remove some doubt and subjectivity or not?

There's pros and cons with almost every solution. Personally I'd rather remove the subjectivity and proceed with something that we have a clear definition on and also because I don't trust officials in their interpretation of deliberate handball

 

[adam09]

That's what you've got to decide on. Do you want to remove some doubt and subjectivity or not?

There's pros and cons with almost every solution. Personally I'd rather remove the subjectivity and proceed with something that we have a clear definition on and also because I don't trust officials in their interpretation of deliberate handball

The main thing that needs interpretating is natural position/movement but that's educational from watching how players move when performing certain actions.

The two penalties in the Luton v Sheffield United game pretty much everybody said are not penalties. Yet multiple professional officials say they were.

I don't think either team appealed for either penalty either. Yet look at yesterday when our game practically stopped as players waited for VAR to stop the game... it's clear officials are on a different planet to fans, players and managers.

 

[valspoodle]

No matter what we all think about certain situations on the pitch. I think everybody at the moment, including officials I'm sure, agrees that the rules introduced are ruining the game. The IFAB people's crackpot attempts to clarify the Laws of the Game are failing badly and need simplifying and correcting.

 

[Frank Clark’s Tash]

Makes you wonder who the rules are actually for. If every man and his dog think it should be a penalty, but the officials decide it isn't due to sub-section 4 paragraph C of the FA's refereeing guidelines, then what good does that serve?

Moreover, if it takes 4+ minutes to adjudicate on a rule they themselves came up with then it's in arguable that the whole system is useless.

 

[Red Ray's Redlist]

WHam and Newcastle non-penalty decisions aren't about subjective interpretations of the laws of the game but a conscious choice not to award Forest anything. Money might not be changing hands but these 2 decisions were so blatant it is obvious now that some form of overt bias is now at play.

 

[Battered Sausage]

Not a moan about the refs, but something they can do

The constant crying wolf with head injuries is getting tedious. All a player has to do to stop a break is go down holding his head and an attack can be stopped. At least the ref on Saturday insisted the physios came on to one ‘injury’ and the player had to leave the field and we broke soon after.

I think if a player goes down holding his head he should at least go off the pitch for five minutes. That’ll bloody learn them to stop fannying around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Googler]

Not a moan about the refs, but something they can do

The constant crying wolf with head injuries is getting tedious. All a player has to do to stop a break is go down holding his head and an attack can be stopped. At least the ref on Saturday insisted the physios came on to one ‘injury’ and the player had to leave the field and we broke soon after.

I think if a player goes down holding his head he should at least go off the pitch for five minutes. That’ll bloody learn them to stop fannying around.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On a number of occasions this season when we have tried to break quickly an opposing player falls over in our half holding his head and the ref stops the game which on most occasions is cheating and I like your idea of the player leaving the pitch for five minutes

 

[enlightened]

Yes that would have been called offside under the old rules.

It's one of the few changes they've got right in my opinion. I remember goals being disallowed because there were players offside on the opposite side of the pitch that never went within 40 yards of the play or the goal. It was ridiculous to have those goals chalked off.

I sort of agree with that ... but as a defender, how do you know whether your defensive line is effective or not. It's all very arbitrary. Just do away with offside altogether.

 

[Notcher]

I sort of agree with that ... but as a defender, how do you know whether your defensive line is effective or not. It's all very arbitrary. Just do away with offside altogether.

It's there to prevent teams from leaving someone upfield and "goalhanging" as we called it when we were kids.

 

[Strummer]

It's there to prevent teams from leaving someone upfield and "goalhanging" as we called it when we were kids.

Ruud van Nistelrooy does not like this post.

 

[enlightened]

It's there to prevent teams from leaving someone upfield and "goalhanging" as we called it when we were kids.

Obviously I understand that, I know why it's there ... but I don't really see an issue with it either

 

[Strummer]

Obviously I understand that, I know why it's there ... but I don't really see an issue with it either

Ruud van Nistelrooy likes this post!

 

[Notcher]

Obviously I understand that, I know why it's there ... but I don't really see an issue with it either

Not for me. Even as a striker myself the game would be absolute dog shite as teams resort to pumping it long to someone stood on the edge of the penalty area. Offside is for the better of the game. Obviously being judged offside for a bit of saggy foreskin borders on the ridiculous

 

[enlightened]

Not for me. Even as a striker myself the game would be absolute dog shite as teams resort to pumping it long to someone stood on the edge of the penalty area. Offside is for the better of the game. Obviously being judged offside for a bit of saggy foreskin borders on the ridiculous

I just don't think attacking teams would get much of an advantage - up to the defending team whether they want to leave someone back or not. I think tactics would evolve such as to make it irrelevant. I'd rather have that than an offside rule that is so difficult to understand and so difficult for defenders to bank on.

 

[Notcher]

I just don't think attacking teams would get much of an advantage - up to the defending team whether they want to leave someone back or not. I think tactics would evolve such as to make it irrelevant. I'd rather have that than an offside rule that is so difficult to understand and so difficult for defenders to bank on.

I don't know what's difficult to understand about it and I've never played with a player that thought it was either.

There's not a cat in hells chance that allowing players to goalhang would become an irrelevant change either. It would become school playground stuff and I can't think of many people that enjoy football who would want change which encourages teams to bang the ball long for 90 minutes

 

[enlightened]

I don't know what's difficult to understand about it and I've never played with a player that thought it was either.

There's not a cat in hells chance that allowing players to goalhang would become an irrelevant change either. It would become school playground stuff and I can't think of many people that enjoy football who would want change which encourages teams to bang the ball long for 90 minutes

I don't think it would. And I still maintain that it's incredibly difficult as a defender to know whether an attacker is, isn't or might be offside.

 

[Robertson]

I don't know what's difficult to understand about it and I've never played with a player that thought it was either.

There's not a cat in hells chance that allowing players to goalhang would become an irrelevant change either. It would become school playground stuff and I can't think of many people that enjoy football who would want change which encourages teams to bang the ball long for 90 minutes

It would be awful. The set piece would be king. Everton and Brentford would be duking it out for the title. Dreadful.