Jump to content
cambridgeshire canary

The 'I hate premier league officials' thread

Recommended Posts

Pepe is sitting on Krul as the final shot from Aub is made, clearly obstructing Krull from even attempting a save. Krul has more chance of saving it than Schmeichel 2 weeks ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

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. 

 

The Cantwell offside optically appeared  wrong, but unfortunately he was interfering with that phase of play so was correctly applied. If that was allowed then we could also have an attacker standing 50 cm in front of the keeper at every free kick from the edge of the box, not moving and be onside. I think most of us would think that was offside. So when we claim inconsistency a law has to apply to every situation.
 

Regarding the Aubameyang one, an identical example is when a ball is played to the (onside) winger on the flank at the same time as the striker is in an offside position in the box, the winger beats his man, squares it (backwards) to the striker who scores (I should include a diagram..). Do we want that to be offside because in the law it isn’t (different phases)? Probably not. But to backtrack, you could claim that the striker has an advantage as he didn’t have to run as far as a covering defender….similar to your point. This is where the law is inconsistent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can keep posting different images and then find a narrative that proves the offside decision or disputes it. 

But for me over the two games the officials have come up with a narrative that goes against us.

I both cases the "offside" player was trying to gain an advantage. Yesterday the "offside" player cashed in on that advantage by being in the right place to take that advantage.

Last week the "offside" player ultimately made no difference.

So we really are back to one official's interpretation of the law.

Same as it ever was.

We just have to hope these things even out.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any mention of Hanley's pathetic attempt to defend prior to the goal?

Edited by CDMullins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, CDMullins said:

Any mention of Hanley's pathetic attempt to defend prior to the goal?

Only the handball. But it's been suggested that as they "looked at" the later incident they couldn't look at that one too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Watch MOTD for a laugh. They hate us just as much as the officials. We're an inconvenience to them, a club that doesn't deserve to play at the level they're covering. This is why if I was the manager I'd be getting our players to just properly spoil every game, cause injuries and waste time from minute 1. Let's give them a reason to hate us, i don't like seeing the club I love blatantly cheated out of results by corrupt officials and that nobody seems to be talking about it. If Oliver gave that goal and didn't even look at VAR if it was against Chelsea or Man Utd there would be outrage and extreme scrutiny in the media..well, he wouldn't have given it against those 2 clubs, but just hypothetically speaking. 

It's so blatant, it's so obvious and it's being filmed and shown to hundreds of millions of people around the world, yet no one really cares, even the club is being too nice about it. We need to take the PL to a sporting tribunal and show the evidence of how utterly cheated we've been in almost every game at this level for the past 20 years. It's never even come remotely close to evening itself out. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

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?

As the whole thing is moot when Pepe has the last touch in the position he did, which was clearly ahead of Aubameyang and closer to the byeline. That's precisely why it is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, TheGunnShow said:

As the whole thing is moot when Pepe has the last touch in the position he did, which was clearly ahead of Aubameyang and closer to the byeline. That's precisely why it is irrelevant.

I don’t agree. please show me where in the laws this “new phase” starts with every touch comes from. I just don’t buy it. I think this is another situation (as with Cantwells) where referrees and officials seem to be making up some kind of interpretation that is not actually in line with the law. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been explained several times before. I don't think trying once more is going to bother for the hard of reading. Use that Norwich RA link on the previous page and ask them, as either I can't explain what is a fairly simple matter clearly enough, or I suspect you're just on the wind-up.

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It's been explained several times before. I don't think trying once more is going to bother for the hard of reading. Use that Norwich RA link on the previous page and ask them, as either I can't explain what is a fairly simple matter clearly enough, or I suspect you're just on the wind-up.

Where is it in the laws. Simple question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So that's cleared up then. If the keeper had saved McLean's header and Cantwell had bundled in the rebound he would have been onside. 

My interpretation would be the opposite because he'd have taken advantage of being in an offside position. Rather than passive, which is what he was when the McLean's header sailed into the net well out of the keeper's reach.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

As the whole thing is moot when Pepe has the last touch in the position he did, which was clearly ahead of Aubameyang and closer to the byeline. That's precisely why it is irrelevant.

The whole thing should have been moot from the moment Saka handballed it 🤷‍♂️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ken Hairy said:

The whole thing should have been moot from the moment Saka handballed it 🤷‍♂️

Agreed there. However, the offside shout was absolutely bang on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for clarification, diagrams 12 (page 208) and 14 (page 209) are what you need. This explains how the IBAF has told referees worldwide that this is how the offside law as it stands should now be interpreted. (McLean's goal vs. Leicester was disallowed due to diagram 6, so Nigel's wrong re. the save rendering it onside as then you'd have a classic version of diagram 10, it didn't as Cantwell was ahead of the second-last defender as McLean's header came in, and by being dead in front of the goalie, he's adjudged to be interfering with the opponent / the opponent's vision. If Castagne had still been on his post when McLean headed it, then it would have stood - but he'd moved up as the corner was taken and just got Cantwell offside as McLean made contact). 

Diagram 12, and I quote verbatim, states that "the player did not gain an advantage from being in that position because the player did not touch the ball". Remember, just being offside in itself is not an offence. This is why the call of his being in an offside position on the second shot from Pepe is moot. So, you move on, and then it becomes clear that Pepe's been hit by that ball, and he's ahead of Aubameyang at that point, so by definition is no longer in an offside position (diagram 14).

As @Ken Hairy rightly said, the handball was the problem.

laws-of-the-game-2021-22 (theifab.com)

Edited by TheGunnShow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours 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.

There was a very clear view of it on the MOTD highlights during the analysis of the game (when Shearer made his comment).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

As for clarification, diagrams 12 (page 208) and 14 (page 209) are what you need. This explains how the IBAF has told referees worldwide that this is how the offside law as it stands should now be interpreted. (McLean's goal vs. Leicester was disallowed due to diagram 6, so Nigel's wrong re. the save rendering it onside, it didn't as Cantwell was ahead of the second-last defender as McLean's header came in, and by being dead in front of the goalie, he's adjudged to be interfering with the opponent / the opponent's vision. If Castagne had still been on his post when McLean headed it, then it would have stood - but he'd moved up as the corner was taken and just got Cantwell offside as McLean made contact). 

Diagram 12, and I quote verbatim, states that "the player did not gain an advantage from being in that position because the player did not touch the ball". Remember, just being offside in itself is not an offence. This is why the call of his being in an offside position on the second shot from Pepe is moot. So, you move on, and then it becomes clear that Pepe's been hit by that ball, and he's ahead of Aubameyang at that point, so by definition is no longer in an offside position (diagram 14).

As @Ken Hairy rightly said, the handball was the problem.

laws-of-the-game-2021-22 (theifab.com)

Yes but in that example the player does not touch the ball at all. Aubamayang becomes actively involved in play once he touches it having originally been in an offside position snd gained an advantage through it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jim Smith said:

Yes but in that example the player does not touch the ball at all. Aubamayang becomes actively involved in play once he touches it having originally been in an offside position snd gained an advantage through it. 

I don’t think the scenario is covered by any of those examples to be honest.

I think it’s a mess. I would have thought most football fans and players would think that “should” be offside snd the law certainly allows for it to be given offside. All these “interpretations” that have come in just serve to make the situation less clear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither did Aubameyang. He only touched it after that final touch from Pepe, where he was clearly onside. Diagram 12 is there to explain the notion of gaining an advantage, not to completely replicate the whole situation in its entirety.

As said before, the Law is impractical nowadays and particularly hard to use at local level, so simplification is certainly needed in my book. But it's been applied as intended there.

The offside issue lies with FIFA and the IFAB, not the referees here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Watch MOTD for a laugh. They hate us just as much as the officials. We're an inconvenience to them, a club that doesn't deserve to play at the level they're covering. This is why if I was the manager I'd be getting our players to just properly spoil every game, cause injuries and waste time from minute 1. Let's give them a reason to hate us, i don't like seeing the club I love blatantly cheated out of results by corrupt officials and that nobody seems to be talking about it. If Oliver gave that goal and didn't even look at VAR if it was against Chelsea or Man Utd there would be outrage and extreme scrutiny in the media..well, he wouldn't have given it against those 2 clubs, but just hypothetically speaking. 

It's so blatant, it's so obvious and it's being filmed and shown to hundreds of millions of people around the world, yet no one really cares, even the club is being too nice about it. We need to take the PL to a sporting tribunal and show the evidence of how utterly cheated we've been in almost every game at this level for the past 20 years. It's never even come remotely close to evening itself out. 

image.gif.3ad7ef68ad79e8926f40485d5f09305d.gif

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Neither did Aubameyang. He only touched it after that final touch from Pepe, where he was clearly onside. Diagram 12 is there to explain the notion of gaining an advantage, not to completely replicate the whole situation in its entirety.

As said before, the Law is impractical nowadays and particularly hard to use at local level, so simplification is certainly needed in my book. But it's been applied as intended there.

The offside issue lies with FIFA and the IFAB, not the referees here.

There is also a debate I think as to whether Pepe’s involvement is one or two “plays”. The guidance says that the first point of contact of a play should be the point at which you consider if the player is offside.

anyway we won’t agree on this. My view is he becomes active once he touches the ball snd as he was in an offside position and gaining an advantage from it immediately beforehand it’s offside. I know you disagree. That’s fine. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As @TheGunnShow has said at least 10 times, being in an offside position is not an offence-a player is only penalised if he does one or more of the things mentioned in Law 11. Aubameyang was in an offside position for 3 or 4 seconds and during that time he didn't do any of those things.

"Gaining an advantage" only appears in Law 11 on occasions when a player in an offside position plays the ball or interferes with an opponent when the ball has rebounded or been deflected off the post, crossbar, an official or an opponent, or been deliberately saved by an opponent. When this happened, the next person to touch the ball was Pepe, when he deflected it to Aubameyang, who was by then in an onside position.

The goal was correctly given, and McLean's was correctly ruled out-that decision would be given 100 times out of 100.

There is no conspiracy against us.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

Watch MOTD for a laugh. They hate us just as much as the officials. We're an inconvenience to them, a club that doesn't deserve to play at the level they're covering. This is why if I was the manager I'd be getting our players to just properly spoil every game, cause injuries and waste time from minute 1. Let's give them a reason to hate us, i don't like seeing the club I love blatantly cheated out of results by corrupt officials and that nobody seems to be talking about it. If Oliver gave that goal and didn't even look at VAR if it was against Chelsea or Man Utd there would be outrage and extreme scrutiny in the media..well, he wouldn't have given it against those 2 clubs, but just hypothetically speaking. 

It's so blatant, it's so obvious and it's being filmed and shown to hundreds of millions of people around the world, yet no one really cares, even the club is being too nice about it. We need to take the PL to a sporting tribunal and show the evidence of how utterly cheated we've been in almost every game at this level for the past 20 years. It's never even come remotely close to evening itself out. 

CRRRRRRRINGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

As @TheGunnShow has said at least 10 times, being in an offside position is not an offence-a player is only penalised if he does one or more of the things mentioned in Law 11. Aubameyang was in an offside position for 3 or 4 seconds and during that time he didn't do any of those things.

"Gaining an advantage" only appears in Law 11 on occasions when a player in an offside position plays the ball or interferes with an opponent when the ball has rebounded or been deflected off the post, crossbar, an official or an opponent, or been deliberately saved by an opponent. When this happened, the next person to touch the ball was Pepe, when he deflected it to Aubameyang, who was by then in an onside position.

The goal was correctly given, and McLean's was correctly ruled out-that decision would be given 100 times out of 100.

There is no conspiracy against us.

He interferes with play though as soon as he touches the ball. He then should be penalised for being offside at the point Pepe first plays the ball. As soon as he touches it he becomes active. 

 

I also don’t agree on the Mclean one because despite repeated requests nobody has been able to clarify how Todd’s interference with the keepers line of sight (if indeed he did interfere with it as it wasn’t looked at) prevented the keeper from playing a ball he was never going to be able to play. 
 

again I don’t expect you to agree. I know you will say I am wrong but I am of the view these laws are regularly not being applied/interpreted correctly by the officials. 
 

I also don’t think there is a conspiracy but I think it’s easier for officials to find ways to give decisions like these against clubs like us. I have no doubt whatsoever that had we scored the Aubamayang goal it would have been disallowed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

He interferes with play though as soon as he touches the ball. He then should be penalised for being offside at the point Pepe first plays the ball. As soon as he touches it he becomes active. 

 

I also don’t agree on the Mclean one because despite repeated requests nobody has been able to clarify how Todd’s interference with the keepers line of sight (if indeed he did interfere with it as it wasn’t looked at) prevented the keeper from playing a ball he was never going to be able to play. 

image.png.59514744bb0883531fbcb10052dd4e0d.png

again I don’t expect you to agree. I know you will say I am wrong but I am of the view these laws are regularly not being applied/interpreted correctly by the officials. 
 

I also don’t think there is a conspiracy but I think it’s easier for officials to find ways to give decisions like these against clubs like us. I have no doubt whatsoever that had we scored the Aubamayang goal it would have been disallowed. 

 

The part of the law relating to line of vision says image.png.d7721d4fbeb603f3c7ac4adf0d93f8ff.png

Lawyers would possibly be able to tell us whether this clause means that if a player is clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision, he is de facto preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. I think that most referees would take this interpretation, and as I said I think that 100 times out of 100 this goal would be disallowed. Regarding your comment about whether Todd was actually interfering with Schmeichel's line of vision, how would they do this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

 

The part of the law relating to line of vision says image.png.d7721d4fbeb603f3c7ac4adf0d93f8ff.png

Lawyers would possibly be able to tell us whether this clause means that if a player is clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision, he is de facto preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. I think that most referees would take this interpretation, and as I said I think that 100 times out of 100 this goal would be disallowed. Regarding your comment about whether Todd was actually interfering with Schmeichel's line of vision, how would they do this?

Well since it’s a component of the offence they need to check it.
 

There are three elements:

1. In an offside position.

2. Clearly obstructing the keepers line of vision.

3. In so going preventing them from being able to play the ball.

if referees are interpreting it as you suggest then I would say they are incorrectly applying the law. 

check out the Liverpool second goal allowed by VAR this afternoon by the way. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Mr Angry said:

 

The part of the law relating to line of vision says image.png.d7721d4fbeb603f3c7ac4adf0d93f8ff.png

Lawyers would possibly be able to tell us whether this clause means that if a player is clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision, he is de facto preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. I think that most referees would take this interpretation, and as I said I think that 100 times out of 100 this goal would be disallowed. Regarding your comment about whether Todd was actually interfering with Schmeichel's line of vision, how would they do this?

Unless you are Liverpool, then apparently the rules are slightly different. I could understand the Cantwell decision before today, but now I can’t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Well since it’s a component of the offence they need to check it.
 

There are three elements:

1. In an offside position.

2. Clearly obstructing the keepers line of vision.

3. In so going preventing them from being able to play the ball.

if referees are interpreting it as you suggest then I would say they are incorrectly applying the law. 

check out the Liverpool second goal allowed by VAR this afternoon by the way. 

 

Ah that will be why the Liverpool goal was allowed, he only blocked the view of a defender, not the goalkeeper lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...