Pathetic refereeing ----------- again.

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

surely under the current offside law Greer playing it last does not put the player back onside, it did prior to the rule change in 1979 but not now. If the player was offside when the Watford player played it he was still offside after Greers touch.

From FIFA's Laws of the game PDF

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.

Ref and Lino got it correct, they got many other things wrong during the game but this was spot on.

 

[JBizzle]

We were the better side in the first half for about 30 minutes then reverted to character.
Watford were shite too, but just finished better than we did.
Referee and the lino on the East side should never f***ing work in football ever again, utter disgrace to the FA and to the game.
Watford wont stay up.

For me personally Bloom should have started enquiring about players for next season 6 months ago, god forbid if he does his
usual bargain bucket rifle two weeks before the season starts like he has every season we have been there.

Hughton needs more time, he is a good manager but needs decent players to do it with.

You're bang on the money with all of that. The referee wasn't the reason we've lost, I've criticised referees when we've won before. Why? Because the standard of officiating across the leagues is getting worse and worse. The argument that TV doesn't help because of multiple angles and replays is irrelevant as well because TV highlights like this have been available to this standard since at least 2001. We're not looking closer, refs are getting worse.

I do feel for them because they should have access to the same things viewers see, but there's no excuse for basic decisions being made incorrectly like (removing bias):

- Benteke's offside vs. Man City when he was clearly onside, meaning it should have been a red for Hart and a pen for Villa;
- Oscar being cleaned out by Ospina, clear penalty and minimum yellow card for Ospina.

These are the decisions that irk, not the minor ones (was is a clip, wasn't it a clip etc). They're also not helped by the rules. Handball is now so unclear that every decision is legitimately debated to the point where it's so hard to find out what is correct and what isn't (take Cahill vs. Arsenal - He gives it a pen, correct decision, he doesn't give a pen, correct decision)

 

[Mattywerewolf]

On the replay they say it was not very convincing defending with an opportunity to get the ball clear.

It was definitely Greer who played it through, and definitely not offside.

Yes, he was in an offside position, but no offence because it was Greer who played it.
The touch by the Watford player doesn't matter.

i understand what you are saying, regardless of how many times you say DEFINITELY. I just happen to disagree having seen it live and on the replays

 

[BensGrandad]

From FIFA's Laws of the game PDF



Ref and Lino got it correct, they got many other things wrong during the game but this was spot on.

It is then up to deciding if Greer actually played the ball or deflected it by it hitting him. That is why the ref is there to make that decision and Keith Stroud is or was a Premier ref so you would expect him to get it right. I must admit to not having seen much wrong with the refs display i was more concerned with ours but CH seemed quite happy other than scoring.

 

[CT1]

So how do you rate Oliver's performance yesterday? A professional referee, rated one of the best, making numerous poor decisions, the most obvious being the two handball decisions.

Maybe you should read my post again, it read "These 16 officials, our very best in the country, have the time to obtain outstanding levels of fitness, spend hours assessing every performance, work with the FA and other PGMOL staff to develop and improve further as referees, and still they make abysmal errors such a sending off wrong players. So again, what do we expect from lower league referees?"

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

It is then up to deciding if Greer actually played the ball or deflected it by it hitting him. That is why the ref is there to make that decision and Keith Stroud is or was a Premier ref so you would expect him to get it right. I must admit to not having seen much wrong with the refs display i was more concerned with ours but CH seemed quite happy other than scoring.

Greer clearly makes a challenge for the ball and plays it into the path of Deeney. It certainly wasn't a deflection from the ball just hitting him.

 

[Everest]

surely under the current offside law Greer playing it last does not put the player back onside, it did prior to the rule change in 1979 but not now. If the player was offside when the Watford player played it he was still offside after Greers touch.

He would have been offside if the ball deflected off Greer, but he played it on purpose. When he did that (it doesn't matter where the ball goes), it nullified the Watford touch.

 

[Stato]

I'm of the view that the ref got that offside call correct. However, he missed two more telling transgressions from Deeney which led up to their first goal. Watch the coverage from about 27 minutes. He deliberately body checks Kayal in order to stop him making a challenge on the Watford player with the ball. The ref misses it. They win a throw in and when Halford makes a poor header straight up into the air Deeney makes no attempt to play the ball but instead jumps into Greer. He bounces off, but his action is enough to put Greer off balance and Deeney is able to pick up the resulting mishit clearance to score.

Deeney is a calculating cheat, who spent the whole game doing the illegal things that his experience told him refs would let slide.

I wish we had someone as clever playing up front for us.

 

[drew]

He would have been offside if the ball deflected off Greer, but he played it on purpose. When he did that (it doesn't matter where the ball goes), it nullified the Watford touch.

I disagree with that although, having viewed it again, I don't think it was offside.

Firstly, the watford player merely flicks the ball over his head and it doesn't seem he is attempting to play the ball to anyone else. It is for that reason it is not offside. By way of comparison, if a winger is charging down the wing with the ball at his feet and in the penalty area the centre forward is ahead of him in an offside position, he is not deemed to be offside each time the winger plays the ball with his feet because he is not attempting to pass it. If the forward is still ahead of the winger when he actually makes the cross then he is offside.

If it was deemed that the Watford player was making a forward pass then Greer's touch is irrelevant as you cannot then be played onside by a touch from a defender, either deliberate or accidental.

 

[Everest]

If it was deemed that the Watford player was making a forward pass then Greer's touch is irrelevant as you cannot then be played onside by a touch from a defender, either deliberate or accidental.

Read the Laws and digest them.

Then read them again.

 

[Joey Jo Jo Jr. Shabadoo]

I disagree with that although, having viewed it again, I don't think it was offside.

Firstly, the watford player merely flicks the ball over his head and it doesn't seem he is attempting to play the ball to anyone else. It is for that reason it is not offside. By way of comparison, if a winger is charging down the wing with the ball at his feet and in the penalty area the centre forward is ahead of him in an offside position, he is not deemed to be offside each time the winger plays the ball with his feet because he is not attempting to pass it. If the forward is still ahead of the winger when he actually makes the cross then he is offside.

If it was deemed that the Watford player was making a forward pass then Greer's touch is irrelevant as you cannot then be played onside by a touch from a defender, either deliberate or accidental.

Deeney would have been offside had the ball not been played by Greer no matter what the passers intention was once Deeney became involved in play (ie touched the ball). The fact is that Deeney was played onside once Greer had made a deliberate play at the ball. It's in black and white in the FIFA Laws of the game.

Your winger analogy is correct when the player is dribbling the ball because the striker wouldn't be involved in play. However if the winger played the ball forward with the intention of running onto it to beat a defender, for example, and the striker came across from the offside position and took the ball himself he'd still be given offside no matter what the winger had intended to do.

 

[Everest]

From the FA

Definitions

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from
playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s
line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.

 

[drew]

Read the Laws and digest them.

Then read them again.

You are in an offside position when the ball is played by your team mate. Suggest you check with the referees association!

I'll give you an example. A midfielder plays a ball through the middle. The striker is an offside position which the assistant referee indicates but the referee hasn't yet blown the whistle. A defender intercepts and plays a 30yrd pass back to the keeper. He under hits and the striker runs on to the ball. Your argument is now that he has been played onside by the deliberate pass of the defender. The player was offside the moment the ball left his team mates foot and, assuming he was seeking to gain an advantage from being in that position, a free kick should be awarded to the defending team.

The part of the rule you are referring to is about when a defender has possession and passes the ball back and it is collected in an offside position, ie no other team mate of the offside player was involved.

 

[Everest]

You are in an offside position when the ball is played by your team mate. Suggest you check with the referees association!

You are in an offside position if you receive the ball played by your team mate

The part of the law definition highlighted in bold does NOT necessarily mean the defending team has possession at the time.
The ball was played by Greer, therefore he CANNOT be offside.

 

[drew]

You are in an offside position if you receive the ball played by your team mate

The part of the law definition highlighted in bold does NOT necessarily mean the defending team has possession at the time.
The ball was played by Greer, therefore he CANNOT be offside.

Just to clarify, I'm not arguing about the decision at the match. The watford players was not playing the ball to Deeney, or anyone else so I agree that Deeney was not offside. My argument is based on the general suggestion that you can be played onside by the defending team after you have been in an offside position and the ball has been played by one of your team before a defender touches it.

 

[wakeytom]

I'm of the view that the ref got that offside call correct. However, he missed two more telling transgressions from Deeney which led up to their first goal. Watch the coverage from about 27 minutes. He deliberately body checks Kayal in order to stop him making a challenge on the Watford player with the ball. The ref misses it. They win a throw in and when Halford makes a poor header straight up into the air Deeney makes no attempt to play the ball but instead jumps into Greer. He bounces off, but his action is enough to put Greer off balance and Deeney is able to pick up the resulting mishit clearance to score.

Deeney is a calculating cheat, who spent the whole game doing the illegal things that his experience told him refs would let slide.

I wish we had someone as clever playing up front for us.

Firstly Kayal runs into him, and secondly that happened almost 2 mins before - Brighton should have cleared it 5 or more times before the goal is eventually scored - surely that is just poor defending, there were also 2 throw ins after the coming together. I dont think Kayal helped himself as he was although the best player on the pitch for Brighton also very lightweight in the tackle

 

[Everest]

My argument is based on the general suggestion that you can be played onside by the defending team after you have been in an offside position and the ball has been played by one of your team before a defender touches it.

It all depends on the situation.

eg using random names...
A pass is made towards an attacker (Deeney) who is in an offside position (not an offence in itself).
The ball is not going to reach Deeney because it was underhit, badly directed and a defender (Greer) is in the way
Greer (in his wisdom) decides to pass back to the goalkeeper (Stockdale) with his first touch, cue slicing it and ending on his arse.
The ball goes straight to Deeney, who is still in an offside position.

Now, if Deeney had NOT challenged Greer for the ball, he would be onside because he didn't receive the ball directly from his teammate.
If Deeney HAD challenged Greer but not actually touched the ball, he would be offside for "interfering with an opponent"


There are so many ways an attacker can be played onside when in an offside position.

 

[Stato]

Firstly Kayal runs into him, and secondly that happened almost 2 mins before - Brighton should have cleared it 5 or more times before the goal is eventually scored - surely that is just poor defending, there were also 2 throw ins after the coming together. I dont think Kayal helped himself as he was although the best player on the pitch for Brighton also very lightweight in the tackle

I wasn't commenting on our shoddy defending, only the fouls. Deeney had no reason to move towards his team mate other than to stop Kayal from making a challenge. It was deliberate obstruction. It was a cute bit of rule breaking; the kind of thing that Steve Fletcher was showing on last year's local football league show. It was cheating, but was subtle enough to fool the ref and obviously some fans too.

Despite this perceived criticism, I would say that Deeney was the telling difference between the two teams and I wish we had someone like him up front for us.

 

[Acker79]

My argument is based on the general suggestion that you can be played onside by the defending team after you have been in an offside position and the ball has been played by one of your team before a defender touches it.

That general suggestion is right and wrong.

You are offside the moment the ball is played, but only if you go on to interfere with play (touch the ball) interfere with an opponent (block someone or get in their eye line), or gain an advantage from your offside position (follow up a shot that hits the post or is saved by the keeper, or if the ball is deflected unintentionally).

The defender getting a touch to the ball ends the pass from a team mate. The attacker didn't interfere with play, he didn't interfere with an opponent and he didn't gain an advantage from a deflection rebound. The defender's next attempt to play the ball is the defending team playing the ball, so the attacker can't be offside from a defending team play.


However.

It will depend on the Ref's Assistant's (or if it is disputed and the ref and the assistant discuss it, the ref) interpretation of this line in the guidance:

A player in an offside position (A) may be penalised before playing or
touching the ball, if, in the opinion of the referee, no other team-mate in an
onside position has the opportunity to play the ball.
(page 111 if the fifa pdf mentioned earlier)​

Some assistants like to wait until the moment the attacker touches the ball, because the laws say he can make a move for the ball and not be offside if he doesn't touch it and doesn't interfere with an opponent, and because an offside player will sometimes stop and let an onside player run through. Some assistants use the above as a reason to flag when it's clear the ball is going to that offside player rather than put up with commentators talking about late flags and fans hurling abuse about not being quicker with the flag.

If the officials decide that the attacker in your hypothetical situation is the only one who can receive the ball, they can flag him as offside from the moment it is kicked. If they don't interpret it that way, then the above stands - the deliberate play by a defender plays the attacker onside.

 

[Mr Bridger]

Yet another game where the referee has beat us!