[Football] Not interfering with play

[jcdenton08]

Both Leicester players made questionable decisions that put the onus of the officials to make another one.

Maupay clearly fouled the Leicester player, but he broke free and somewhat bizarrely attempted to handle the ball.

( The actual handball came from a header onto his flailing arm after he had missed it )

What was he doing ? Trying to stop play ? Alert the referee to the foul ? Bonkers. You are running the risk of the officials missing the foul, which they did.

As for the offsides, well it's clearly a border-line "interfering/not interfering with play" tactic that Leicester employ. It will work for them sometimes and other times not.

Good points

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

The way I see it ....

The two offsides. Totally Brendan Rogers fault for setting up an attacking corner with a man staying offside in front of our keeper. Maybe a bit of luck in the sense that these aren't always ruled out, even though they should be .. but no complaints can be made

The pen. I can see that both ways. If it's not a free kick against Maupay then it's a pen. And the free kick not given so benefit of the doubt.

I'm so terribly sad to hear that some Leicester fans were upset at the officiating. Ha ha

I though it was great to see a lino have the balls to make big calls. Mostly they hide away as much as poss

 

[Seagull58]

The way I see it ....

The two offsides. Totally Brendan Rogers fault for setting up an attacking corner with a man staying offside in front of our keeper. Maybe a bit of luck in the sense that these aren't always ruled out, even though they should be .. but no complaints can be made

The pen. I can see that both ways. If it's not a free kick against Maupay then it's a pen. And the free kick not given so benefit of the doubt.

I'm so terribly sad to hear that some Leicester fans were upset at the officiating. Ha ha

I though it was great to see a lino have the balls to make big calls. Mostly they hide away as much as poss

Absolutely agree regarding the offsides. If you station a player in an offside position n front of the keeper he is not allowed to impact the play in any way so why would you do it? Only in the hope that he can put off the keeper and not get flagged for doing so.

 

[seaford]

Both were given offside BY THE LINESMAN.

VAR is for clear and obvious errors. Judging by the reaction they weren’t clear and obvious, so we’ve got the benefit of the decisions.

I’m sorry, but we can either have exact decisions all the time, or VAR with a ‘light touch’ for the benefit of the game. Make up your mind.

Additionally, it is not the linesman's responsibility to decide if the player is interfering with play, they are offside or not, it is the referees responsibility to apply the "interfering" element to the decision. Or is my interpretation incorrect?

 

[Weststander]

Well played Albion defence in the heat of the battle, for making sure that Barnes was offside.

I assume expertly orchestrated by Dunk.

 

[Dave the hatosaurus]

Bill Shankly - 'If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.'

I thought he said , when told that an offside opposition player was not interfering with play , " if he wasn't interfering with play he shouldn't have been on the pitch ! "
Basically meaning that either someone is offside or they are not , but i may well be mistaken as when you reach my age the memory fades !
Either way the upshot is the same and the " goals " were rightly chalked off

 

[clapham_gull]

The penalty decision could have gone either way – Maupay was doing standard penalty area pulling type things that sometimes do and sometimes don't get punished, and that's why Vestergard's arm was where it was. But that type of holding goes unpunished all the time.

The two offside decisions were a bit 'unfortunate' for Leicester but were clearly correct.

I'm sorry, I don't understand the "that's why Vestergard's arm was where it was" bit. He's actually breaking away as he jumps and is clearly attempting to handle the ball. He misses, but the ball eventually rebounds off it from the header.

Absolutely bonkers decision by the Leicester player, you can only conclude he was trying to stop play to alert the referee to the foul.

 

[tigertim68]

Look I love my club but I am one of those rare fans who can actually see black is black and white is white, even when the Albion are involved. We were very lucky today.

No way we’re we lucky today, we played really well ,and deserved to win .

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Absolutely agree regarding the offsides. If you station a player in an offside position n front of the keeper he is not allowed to impact the play in any way so why would you do it? Only in the hope that he can put off the keeper and not get flagged for doing so.

He is placed there to stop the keeper moving out to the ball and also to block him, therefore as soon as the ball goes forwards he is active. The interviewer on the BBC nailed it with her questioning of Rodgers.

As far as the penalty the grabbing of his arm is no or less than seen at most corners and often more so by the defenders, who get away with it 99% of the time

 

[BluesRockDJ]

Look I love my club but I am one of those rare fans who can actually see black is black and white is white, even when the Albion are involved. We were very lucky today.

Like Man U were lucky when they grabbed a goal after the final whistle....................Leicester had no answers, plenty of huffing and puffing, but noe end result........thought Duffy, again was immense !

 

[clapham_gull]

Having watched it again and again. Penalty shouldn't have been given, because of a previous foul. The player was not forced into a handball though, completely his decision.

The offsides are clearly offside, Barnes trying to "cleverly" exploit an interpretation of interfering with play. He is clearly there to put off the keeper but move away at the last second.

Officials weren't having any of it, so it was a bit silly to attempt it again once the officials had registered their interpretation.

If I was a Leicester fan, I'd be annoyed at the penalty but equally annoyed with Vestergard.

 

[jcdenton08]

Like Man U were lucky when they grabbed a goal after the final whistle....................Leicester had no answers, plenty of huffing and puffing, but noe end result........thought Duffy, again was immense !

Absolutely Man Utd were lucky. And we were robbed. Now it's payback.

 

[Dorset Seagull]

The offside rule needs to revert back to how it used to be. If you are in an offside position when the ball is played forward then you are offside. I imagine that if you are in an offside position on the touchline say and clearly not interfering then tough you should make sure you aren't offside. Keep it simple I say then there is no controversey

 

[Sheebo]

Have to say, having seen it all properly on MOTD I’m gonna back track.

Pen - foul by Maupay - but so was Tarkowski’s on Maupay at Burnley so evens it up.

Offside 1 - no question - offside.

Offside 2 - he does push Sanchez and get in his way but when N’didi heads it he’s not interfering at all - should have been allowed.

Agree with MOTD pundits here. But my word last season and the season before we had way more shit luck than most teams - so I’ll take it, obviously…!

I do also remember the cup game that was a bit sketchy when a few of our players thought the ball that had gone out was going to be thrown back on etc and they took a quick corner - I’m sure there are other decisions Leicester have got against us but can’t recall - so swings n roundabouts…

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Have to say, having seen it all properly on MOTD I’m gonna back track.

Pen - foul by Maupay - but so was Tarkowski’s on Maupay at Burnley so evens it up.

Offside 1 - no question - offside.

Offside 2 - he does push Sanchez and get in his way but when N’didi heads it he’s not interfering at all - should have been allowed.

Agree with MOTD pundits here. But my word last season and the season before we had way more shit luck than most teams - so I’ll take it, obviously…!

I do also remember the cup game that was a bit sketchy when a few of our players thought the ball that had gone out was going to be thrown back on etc and they took a quick corner - I’m sure there are other decisions Leicester have got against us but can’t recall - so swings n roundabouts…

Agree with 2 out of 3 points here. Barnes was having a wrestling match with Sanchez up to the moment the corner was taken for the second offside, and at that point was interfering with the goalkeeper and seeking to gain an advantage.

The fact the waters have been so muddied with various rule changes and versions of the rule doesn’t detract from the point that Barnes was seeking to gain an advantage by giving Sanchez something to think about, i.e. interfering with, and wouldn’t have been in an offside position if he hadn’t.

 

[Justice]

Have to say, having seen it all properly on MOTD I’m gonna back track.

Pen - foul by Maupay - but so was Tarkowski’s on Maupay at Burnley so evens it up.

Offside 1 - no question - offside.

Offside 2 - he does push Sanchez and get in his way but when N’didi heads it he’s not interfering at all - should have been allowed.

Agree with MOTD pundits here. But my word last season and the season before we had way more shit luck than most teams - so I’ll take it, obviously…!

I do also remember the cup game that was a bit sketchy when a few of our players thought the ball that had gone out was going to be thrown back on etc and they took a quick corner - I’m sure there are other decisions Leicester have got against us but can’t recall - so swings n roundabouts…

Offside two if your defenders push up on a free kick and leave an opponent in an offside position the whistle blows what’s the difference

 

[Sheebo]

Agree with 2 out of 3 points here. Barnes was having a wrestling match with Sanchez up to the moment the corner was taken for the second offside, and at that point was interfering with the goalkeeper and seeking to gain an advantage.

The fact the waters have been so muddied with various rule changes and versions of the rule doesn’t detract from the point that Barnes was seeking to gain an advantage by giving Sanchez something to think about, i.e. interfering with, and wouldn’t have been in an offside position if he hadn’t.

Mmm yeh - I assume what happens before N’didi heads it is irrelevant though as he’s only offside once he heads it and Barnes has moved out the way a bit?

 

[Sheebo]

Offside two if your defenders push up on a free kick and leave an opponent in an offside position the whistle blows what’s the difference

Shouldn’t blow - (well shouldn’t be flagged) until they attempt to play the ball and become active?

 

[clapham_gull]

Offside two if your defenders push up on a free kick and leave an opponent in an offside position the whistle blows what’s the difference

Well he wasn't "interfering with play", but a second before he "was".

What the MOTD pundits missed (both strikers) was the nuance of a clear tactical move to unsettle the goalkeeper but do so within the rules.

The tactical error was to attempt it again after the officials had ruled it offside before. The officials probably saw a repeat of the last incident, although there were differences.

There is always the argument that players know better than referees because they haven't played the game. I think some ex-players forget the fact they haven't attempted to referee it either.

I'd agree with just returning to the day "offside" was offside and dropping this active / interfering with play bollocks.

 

[Mellotron]

Mmm yeh - I assume what happens before N’didi heads it is irrelevant though as he’s only offside once he heads it and Barnes has moved out the way a bit?

We’re talking split seconds though aren’t we? I’d argue Sanchez is possibly out of position for Ndidi’s header due to Barnes?

Either way, I think Harvey Barnes is a bit thick to try it a second time.