The 'I hate premier league officials' thread

[horsefly 4,298]

Interesting discussion, but I think you'll find City's main complaint was that Saka handled the ball in the build up (not the offside ruling).

[Google Bot 3,275]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Think of every new touch by an attacking player as a new phase of play.

Ok, that makes sense as it's easier to employ with such a distinction. 

Does that mean that previous phases have no relevance whatsoever then? As he's clearly offside and gaining an advantage on the initial shot - that's what's bugging me so much, and where I'm quite ignorant on the subject. 🙂

It's mad to think that Pepe touching it in that position plays him onside again, but equally I can see the sense in it.  Feels like incredibly bad luck the more i process this. 😞

 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

7 minutes ago, Google Bot said:

Ok, that makes sense as it's easier to employ with such a distinction. 

Does that mean that previous phases have no relevance whatsoever then? As he's clearly offside and gaining an advantage on the initial shot - that's what's bugging me so much, and where I'm quite ignorant on the subject. 🙂

It's mad to think that Pepe touching it in that position plays him onside again, but equally I can see the sense in it.  Feels like incredibly bad luck the more i process this. 😞

 

The opening words of Law 11 are, quite simply, "It is not an offence to be in an offside position". Simply being offside is not enough for the referee/assistant to blow, so previous phases are indeed irrelevant - as said, simply being offside in itself is not enough. You only blow if he's gaining the advantage/interfering with play etc. at that point in time. 

That was why I mentioned the example of a striker being offside but the ball humped to the wings for a winger to chase, who gets to the byeline and crosses it back in to said striker who is now onside to score legally.

It is incredibly bad luck.

 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Really feel Farke needs to stop being so nice and apply some pressure over these decisions we are getting. Need to go on the attack. Regardless of the correctness or otherwise of the two recent decisions (and personally I think they were both wrong but know others differ) we will be bound to get something at some point soon if we make a bit of a fuss. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Ben White shoukd also have been sent off but Oliver bottled it as he knew he’d already booked him. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

If Leicester scored that goal would it have been disallowed? Or a better question would be would the ref even bother to take a look?

Nope. It was also not a correct decision as it did not prevent the keeper from playing the ball. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Finally seen the goal in question. What a kerfuffle. It shows how bad the offside rule is with all the amendments over the last 15 years, but the referee has got it right.

First shot tipped onto post, all OK. 

Second shot, Aubameyang is in an offside position when the shot is hit, but Williams looks like he gets a touch on it. Doesn't matter as the ball then crashes into the melee and hits an unwitting Pepe as he falls over. At this point, you need to look where Aubameyang is relative to the ball as it's a new passage of play. He's half-a-yard behind it as the ball hits Pepe - not in front.

It's legit.

https://youtu.be/yGXVFA0lKzQ

Where does the “new passage of play” thing come from though? It’s clearly not a new passage of play. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

It hit Pepe, and he was ahead of Aubameyang when he hit it, so by definition he could NOT be offside.

The second time. The first time he plays the ball Aubamayang is offside. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

3 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Plenty of cases where someone who was offside in the middle but isn't interfering as a ball is sent wide for a winger running from deeper, then puts a cross in to the striker who is back onside to score a legitimate goal. It's exactly the same principle here.

It’s not sent wide though. In fact Pepe is possibly trying to play the ball to him when it deflects onto the post. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 hours ago, TheGunnShow said:

Think of every new touch by an attacking player as a new phase of play.

Where does it say that. That cannot be correct 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

It is correct. Decision is made at the time the ball is played. When the ball hits Pepe and rolls across to Aubameyang, he's half-a-yard onside and in fact, the ball's closer to the bye line than he is at the moment of impact, so by definition be can't be offside as he's behind the ball.

The confusion many have seems to be due to a combination of Aubameyang's initially offside position on the second shot and the fact that Pepe hit that shot before getting hit when it rebounded off the post. Remember that merely standing in an offside position itself is not an offence. As he's at the back post when everyone else is at the near post, he's not really interfering with play. He would have gained an advantage if Krul had parried it and it landed to him. However, as the ball rebounded and hit Pepe, he hasn't gained the advantage or interfered...at that point. Pepe then gets hit by the ball, so it results in another offside query.

So, the offside decision has to be made when the ball hits Pepe on the rebound as that's the ball which puts Aube in to score. That's comfortably onside. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the assistant messaged Oliver on that as he looked dead in line.

It's atrocious luck for the ball to hit Pepe like that (instead of Krul) and put Aube back onside as if Krul had saved it without it touching an Arsenal player or if the ball had just come straight to him off the post, it would have been offside as the point of checking offside would have been when Pepe hit that second shot. This is where fans are understandably confused. Some of the reporting on EDP is confused as they seem to be saying it's hit Krul. Which makes me wonder if that was part of the check, but that's one thing we don't know.

Interestingly, a quick root around on FB revealed the Norwich Referees Society, so if anyone's really interested, I suspect they're more than happy to clarify interpretations of Law.

Norwich RA | Facebook

[Jim Smith 2,317]

he was committing an offside offence the first time Pepe played the ball. It’s not a new phase of play every time an Arsenal player touches it. He was in an offside position and gained and advantage from it. 
 
The fact we can debate it shows the law is kit as clear as it needs to be. The fact it went against us after the Leicester decision as well js just pretty devastating to be honest. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Ps. How is Aubamayang not interfering with play because he’s at the far post whereas Todd was despite the fact Schmeical was never getting anywhere near that header. It’s just utter b****cks.

[Jezzard 16]

I’d like it to be offside but unfortunately it was given as when Aubameyang was offside in the first phase of play when he was deemed inactive. He wasn’t offside in the second phase ‘pass’ from Pepe as he was behind the ball. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 minutes ago, Jezzard said:

I’d like it to be offside but unfortunately it was given as when Aubameyang was offside in the first phase of play when he was deemed inactive. He wasn’t offside in the second phase ‘pass’ from Pepe as he was behind the ball. 

He’s not inactive though. It’s not a momentary thing. He gains an advantage (and in fact is able to score) as a direct result of being in an offside position. And if he’s inactive in that scenario then Cantwell was certainly also inactive 2 weeks ago.

it beggars belief. No other top flight team would get this dirt if regular shafting from the officials. We need to kick off about it and put these c**ts under some pressure. 

 

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

Sorry but we were pretty poor today.. without the heriocs of Brandon Williams in the first half we'd have been 2 or 3 down.. toothless up front. Tough season ahead.

[Kenny Foggo 1,116]

43 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Ps. How is Aubamayang not interfering with play because he’s at the far post whereas Todd was despite the fact Schmeical was never getting anywhere near that header. It’s just utter b****cks.

Yes it is corrupt

[First Wazzock 902]

I found it more sickening that we didn't get the handball in the build up to the goal...

[nutty nigel 7,531]

1 hour ago, Jim Smith said:

Ps. How is Aubamayang not interfering with play because he’s at the far post whereas Todd was despite the fact Schmeical was never getting anywhere near that header. It’s just utter b****cks.

This for me. 

If Cantwell was offside and interfering then surely any attacker offside in the six yard box is interfering.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Nope. Cantwell was dead in front of Schmeichel so he's always going to be seen as being in the opponent's eyeline. Diagram 6 of the IFAB made that clear how he's interfering. There was no-one within yards of Aubameyang and he was onside when the ball hit Pepe. Where he was before is irrelevant.

Calls of corruption are just cries from the clueless. No-one's disputing that the Law is crap and needs overhauling, but that's a completely different story that is not related to officials being corrupt.

The handball is the issue.

[horsefly 4,298]

Just watched it for the first time and it's very clear that Saka handballs. Shearer said it was a "tight decision" but it very clearly wasn't, because without the handball Saka doesn't get control of the ball. So it is a dreadful VAR decision not to reverse the decision, and the City players are right to be angry.

[Diane 500]

This is the still you should have used Cambridge

[Jim Smith 2,317]

Where is this new phase of play law? I don’t accept that it’s a new phase of play. They need to consider if he’s committing an offence both times Pepe plays the ball and in my view he is the first time and he gains an advantage from it. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

Except he doesn't gain an advantage at that point as the ball goes nowhere near him, he's not interfering with Krul or with play, and it's not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. So, that point's moot.

It moves on to the next touch by an attacking player, where it is obvious he's onside at that phase, as @Diane 's screenshot makes clear.

@horsefly - where did you see the handball view? Didn't seem to get shown clearly on the Sky highlights or the two minutes of footage from the NCFC FB page.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Except he doesn't gain an advantage at that point as the ball goes nowhere near him, he's not interfering with Krul or with play, and it's not an offence in itself to be in an offside position. So, that point's moot.

It moves on to the next touch by an attacking player, where it is obvious he's onside at that phase, as @Diane 's screenshot makes clear.

@horsefly - where did you see the handball view? Didn't seem to get shown clearly on the Sky highlights or the two minutes of footage from the NCFC FB page.

He gains an advantage from being offside as he is able to tap the ball in without moving from his offside position he’s in when Pepe plays the ball the first time. 

[Monty13 2,231]

I don’t see how it’s considered a new phase of play it’s literally a second or so after the shot when he was offside.

If that is the official interpretation of the rules it’s ****.

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

41 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

He gains an advantage from being offside as he is able to tap the ball in without moving from his offside position he’s in when Pepe plays the ball the first time. 

Which is irrelevant as Pepe's touched it again before Aubameyang actually taps it in, and at that point he's well onside.

The law's rubbish, but the referees applied it correctly here.

The real issue is the handball missed in the build-up.

[Baracouda 47]

personally as someone who qualified as a ref a long time ago, I think anytime a person gains an advantage from being in an offside position and makes no attempt to come back they remain offside. The example about a striker being in an offside position, and the gets played wide is slightly disingenuous, as the defenders normally run back and the striker comes back onside, or the striker is walking back towards being onside admittedly very slowly. 

The striker made no attempt to come back onside, when both the ball and the striker are in the six yard box then he must be 'active' unless a shot goes straight in. 

Personally, I think the officials would have ruled it out. If it was us scoring. 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Baracouda

[Jim Smith 2,317]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Which is irrelevant as Pepe's touched it again before Aubameyang actually taps it in, and at that point he's well onside.

The law's rubbish, but the referees applied it correctly here.

The real issue is the handball missed in the build-up.

It’s not irrelevant though is it. He commits an offside offence when Pepe plays the ball the first time. He ultimately gains an advantage from that offside by being unmarked and able to tap the ball in unchallenged. How can you seriously say he does not gain an advantage from being offside in the lead up to that goal?

[Jim Smith 2,317]

3 minutes ago, Baracouda said:

personally as someone who qualified as a ref a long time ago, I think anytime a person gains an advantage from being in an offside position and makes no attempt to come back they remain offside. The example about a striker being in an offside position, and the gets played wide is slightly disingenuous, as the defenders normally run back and the striker comes back onside, or the striker is walking back towards being onside admittedly very slowly. 

The striker made no attempt to come back onside, when both the ball and the striker are in the six yard box then he must be 'active' unless a shot goes straight in. 

Personally, I think the officials would have ruled it out. If it was us scoring. 

I agree with this. It’s just so frustrating that these things keep going against us at time when we desperately need to get our season going.