Villa 3rd Goal Offside

[claret wizard]

I looked on the match thread and it was mentioned once. At the time in the CFS I thought Watkins had touched it. Seen it on TV today and how is he not given offside? He doesn’t touch it, but is yards offside and has to jump over the ball. He must have impeded Trafford’s view. VAR did check it, can’t see that goal standing against Utd at Old Trafford.

[randomclaret2]

Im sure VAR looked at it thoroughly

[Jimmymaccer]

I think the Cricket Field Stand have a song about VAR……………

[bfcmik]

If he jumps over the ball he is not interfering with play as the rules stand, Tella did it last year and, I think, Zaroury scored, which at the time I thought meant he was interfering but had it pointed out to me that it is not offside.

[ClaretTony]

I looked on the match thread and it was mentioned once. At the time in the CFS I thought Watkins had touched it. Seen it on TV today and how is he not given offside? He doesn’t touch it, but is yards offside and has to jump over the ball. He must have impeded Trafford’s view. VAR did check it, can’t see that goal standing against Utd at Old Trafford.

Mentioned it in my report - cannot believe that VAR didn't rule that out, clearly impeding Trafford.

From my report: "Just as we were about to restart, the stadium announcer informed us that there was a VAR check for a possible offside. It was somewhat belated but the goal stood and we were 3-1 down. Should it have stood? I reckon there are some teams in this Premier League who would not have conceded a goal like that with Watkins clearly in an offside position and positioned in front of Trafford."

[RVclaret]

If he jumps over the ball he is not interfering with play as the rules stand, Tella did it last year and, I think, Zaroury scored, which at the time I thought meant he was interfering but had it pointed out to me that it is not offside.

He wasn’t interfering directly with a shot towards goal in that instance. Here, Watkins was in Trafford’s line of sight AND walked over the ball. I thought this was the definition of interfering.

[JarrowClaret]

Without knowing the official rule it did look offside to me but I don’t think it would have mattered in the long run.

[FCBurnley]

100% offside. In offside position and obstructing Traffords view. If that’s not offside then every team would position a player a foot in front of keeper !! Didn’t make any difference tho

[Tricky Trevor]

Blades equaliser against City was worse McBurnie actually stopped Ederson from making the save and it was given.
I mentioned Watkins on the MDT and it’s still offside for me. The keeper has to be distracted by him in case he plays the ball and isn’t offside.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Saw the highlights today. Definite offside. The lad hit in left footed so it compounded the keeper’s view being blocked by Watkins hence he was slow to go down.

The VAR was John Brooks. Combine him and Salisbury and we would have been better off with Statler and Waldorf.

To rub salt in the wounds the 4th official on babysitting duties on the touchline was the excellent Anthony Taylor.

At that point we were on the verge of equalising. Whether we would have got anything from the game, who knows? But the officials affected the game which wasn’t what I thought watching it live in person. As we have long known, the smaller clubs in this league have had to play against 12 men regularly. These days it is 13.

[IanMcL]

The announcer said checking for offside and 2 seconds later, the ref blew for kick off.

Who says the Prem isn't fixed?

[superdimitri]

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision.

https://www.theifab.com/laws/latest/off ... e-position

If Watkins was deemed to block Traffords view then it definitely was offside. I think we needed to show more protest and bite when these decisions go against us. Trafford should have ran to the referee to put the case to him. It kinda reminds me of our first season in the Premier League when we were too honest.

VAR obviously thought Traffords vision was not impaired, but in my opinion a Sunday league keeper could save that peashooter if they saw the player make the shot.. so you would expect Trafford to get there if he saw the shot taking place.

[mybloodisclaret]

Not this game, but City's 3rd was also in my view a fortuitous goal to be given, as the ball bounces in the area, the ball hits Ake's hand before landing and Rodri smashing it home. The touch isn't significant, but there is a definite touch, which controls the direction of the ball.

[beddie]

I’m sure if VK felt an injustice had been done he would have asked Howard Webb for an explanation, not that it changes anything.

[sandy richardson]

Like others, I was surprised not much was made of this.

On the Man City goal at Sheffield, it was mentioned (briefly) that McBurnie was played onside by Kyle Walker, who up against the advertising boards at this point. I suppose his position is taken to be at the point where he left the playing area, but I don't know if that is explicitly in the offside law.

[Foshiznik]

Like others, I was surprised not much was made of this.

On the Man City goal at Sheffield, it was mentioned (briefly) that McBurnie was played onside by Kyle Walker, who up against the advertising boards at this point. I suppose his position is taken to be at the point where he left the playing area, but I don't know if that is explicitly in the offside law.

You are correct Sandy. That is the rule:-

"a defender who leaves the field of play without the referee's permission must be considered to be on the nearest boundary line for the purposes of deciding whether an attacker is in an offside position."

[sandy richardson]

Foshiznik--thanks for this. I did have a look at the law but lost the will to live half way through. Would be interesting to know if McBurnie realised this. And if Walker didn't. And, even though it was the correct decision, whether this actually was the reason it was not given offside.

The old offside law was a masterpiece of concise drafting.

[Rowls]

The old offside law was a masterpiece of concise drafting.

Spot on.

And all consequent re-drafts to try and define "interfering with play" vs "not intefering" are the opposite.

[Spijed]

The rule regarding players leaving the field was precisely for that reason and rightly so. A defender can't just walk off the pitch to leave a striker stranded in an offside position.

[chekhov]

Blades equaliser against City was worse McBurnie actually stopped Ederson from making the save and it was given.
I mentioned Watkins on the MDT and it’s still offside for me. The keeper has to be distracted by him in case he plays the ball and isn’t offside.

Agree that Sheffield united’s equaliser should, according to the law, have been disallowed.
That it was allowed will however upset the narrative of big club bias.

[RickyBobby]

Not offside as Trafford was wearing a burnley shirt. If he still had a city shirt on then it becomes offside.

[ClaretTony]

Not this game, but City's 3rd was also in my view a fortuitous goal to be given, as the ball bounces in the area, the ball hits Ake's hand before landing and Rodri smashing it home. The touch isn't significant, but there is a definite touch, which controls the direction of the ball.

That is not handball under the new handball law although would have been had it gone directly into the net.

[RMutt]

I do wonder sometimes whether referees have become so accustomed to players protesting for decisions, that when the gesticulation doesn’t happen they just happily play on.
It seems we are a team that doesn’t get in the referee’s face. I’m sure Dyche would have told players not to, and Kompany also seems to value self discipline.
It might help to explain the number of decisions that appear to go against us?

[Transpennine]

That is not handball under the new handball law although would have been had it gone directly into the net.

So it's only deemed handball if a goal is scored..?.

[mybloodisclaret]

That is not handball under the new handball law although would have been had it gone directly into the net.

Ah, that clears that up then, only becomes handball if it goes in. Luckily then for City it fell to that Rodri fella who laced it in.

[ClaretTony]

So it's only deemed handball if a goal is scored..?.

It’s handball if it goes directly into the net.

[THEWELLERNUT70]

I called it straight away on the match day thread as well. That split second where Watkins is 4 yards offside and clearly obstructing the view of the shot cost Trafford dearly

[Transpennine]

It’s handball if it goes directly into the net.

Thanks Tony.

[Hipper]

The rule regarding players leaving the field was precisely for that reason and rightly so. A defender can't just walk off the pitch to leave a striker stranded in an offside position.

Contrarily an attacker that leaves the field of play so as not to be offside is not in an offside position. This of course is because he is not interfering with play.

If an attacker is down injured in an offside position he is not considered interfering with play, unless of course he does! However a defender down injured can still play the opposition onside - this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the Laws but is what I was taught in the 1980s.

https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-go ... ---offside

[boatshed bill]

The offside rules now are about as daft as they could be,
and the handball rule isn't a lot better.

[sandy richardson]

This is like the old 'You are the Ref' in Shoot!

What happens if an attacking player handles the ball and it goes in off a defender?

And, for offside, if a player off the pitch 'must be considered to be on the nearest boundary line', then where on the nearest boundary line? And why not where they left the pitch?

[Stan Tastic]

Why are people saying it made no difference? Of course it would. We're still in the game with plenty of time to equalise and it was a huge psychological boost to them to allow it. That's what VAR is there for, not to agree with the ref when you can clearly see he's got it wrong.

[FeedTheArf]

The announcer said checking for offside and 2 seconds later, the ref blew for kick off.

Who says the Prem isn't fixed?

I think that’s less about the time spent checking VAR and more about the speed in which our stadium team being quick with putting the VAR review announcement on screen. It takes that long that the review has largely already happened.

[dsr]

And, for offside, if a player off the pitch 'must be considered to be on the nearest boundary line', then where on the nearest boundary line? And why not where they left the pitch?

Possibly for the logical reason that the offside is to be judged on where the defender is not where he used to be, and possibly on the pragmatic grounds that the linesman has no chance at all of judging whether a defender on the far touchline is on the pitch or not, let alone where exactly he left the pitch.

[Hipper]

The offside rules now are about as daft as they could be,
and the handball rule isn't a lot better.

I don't think the offside rule is daft. It makes sense if you want to stop goal hanging (as we called it at school). Of course it compresses the play and Jimmy Adamson wanted this law removed (as well as bigger goals).

What makes the reader of the offside law (and other laws) suicidal is that we have removed from them ''in the referee's opinion' which has lead to all these 'if this happens....', if that happens...'. We no longer trust the referee's opinion, partly because it lead to inconsistencies but mostly because of TV coverage.

A point to remember is that these laws apply to all football so the poor old park football ref, especially with no or clueless assistants, has to do all the instant triangular/time calculations for offside that he always did plus try and apply all the various connotations in the law. So much easier with 'in the referee's opinion'.

[boatshed bill]

I don't think the offside rule is daft. It makes sense if you want to stop goal hanging (as we called it at school). Of course it compresses the play and Jimmy Adamson wanted this law removed (as well as bigger goals).

What makes the reader of the offside law (and other laws) suicidal is that we have removed from them ''in the referee's opinion' which has lead to all these 'if this happens....', if that happens...'. We no longer trust the referee's opinion, partly because it lead to inconsistencies but mostly because of TV coverage.

A point to remember is that these laws apply to all football so the poor old park football ref, especially with no or clueless assistants, has to do all the instant triangular/time calculations for offside that he always did plus try and apply all the various connotations in the law. So much easier with 'in the referee's opinion'.

I don't know when you were at school, but didn't the original offside rule make goalhanging impossible? The defending team pushed up and left the goalhanger offside if the ball was played forward.