+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 75108
Total Topics: 5527
Most Online Today: 129
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 5
Guests: 119
Total: 124

Author Topic: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney  (Read 1297 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mikael W

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #30 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 11:38 »
Many former referees (and former players but we know that anyway) showed that they don’t take the time to understand the laws revision (of interpretation) and should be ashamed of themselves as they collect their pay checks for analysing decisions. If you took the time to look at IFAB’s revisions, for which they provided extensive videos, you would know that Bankes-Tierney offside decision was FULLY CORRECT. Shameful that they don’t understand, misinform, and get paid for it anyway.

NOTE: UEFA/FIFA/IFAB tried to circumvent common-sense with this latest Law 11 ‘revolution’ and they deservedly pay the price with absurd calls like this. Twenty years of Law 11 tinkering for the good only of televised football (-> money) brought us here…
« Last Edit: Sat 18 Mar 2023 11:55 by Mikael W »
Like Like x 2 View List

refs1

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #31 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 12:02 »
Yet again, we see referees performances challenged on the rate the ref, when the knowledge of law seems poor.

For the offside can imagine the conversion would have been, this is a offside because of the deflection and you need come to the screen to sell it. Yet the referee gets still gets criticised for getting the decision right by going to the screen.

The throw in when Burns got cautioned, ball was clearly kicked out by Burns. It was good to see a referee deal with dissent and not ignore it, some would say foul and abusive, think we could have a debate on its own for that one!

Personally thought he had a good game, but I don’t have any tinted spectacles.
Like Like x 1 Winner Winner x 1 View List

TVOS

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,445
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #32 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 12:06 »
Fortunately, the offside decision didn’t matter in the end, other than to Anderson losing his first career goal, thanks to the helping hand from the Forest defender.

My question is how this decision relates to the new position on use of VAR only to overturn clear and obvious errors? The word subjective has been used a lot here, which suggests nothing was factually wrong and it’s based on opinion. Are we not supposed to be moving away from re-refereeing games based on subjectivity?

It wouldn't have been his first career goal, as he scored seven on loan at Bristol Rovers last season.

Mikael W

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 226
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #33 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 12:07 »
Video clips:


(Rightly) disallowed goal -




Penalty at the end -


Affy_Moose

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Scottish Match Official
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #34 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 12:34 »
Many former referees (and former players but we know that anyway) showed that they don’t take the time to understand the laws revision (of interpretation) and should be ashamed of themselves as they collect their pay checks for analysing decisions. If you took the time to look at IFAB’s revisions, for which they provided extensive videos, you would know that Bankes-Tierney offside decision was FULLY CORRECT. Shameful that they don’t understand, misinform, and get paid for it anyway.

NOTE: UEFA/FIFA/IFAB tried to circumvent common-sense with this latest Law 11 ‘revolution’ and they deservedly pay the price with absurd calls like this. Twenty years of Law 11 tinkering for the good only of televised football (-> money) brought us here…

IFAB changed the guidance because of the goals in matches such as Germany v England; Spain v Italy; Belgium v Russia; Liverpool v Tottenham.

All of those games has goals allowed where an offside attacker was played onside due to a last ditch/outstretched/reflexive interception/play inadvertently playing an attacker onside.

Education is sorely lacking at every level as you say.

I’d say IFAB are on a hiding to nothing. They keep the old Law, people complain. They change it and people aren’t happy.

There will always be edge cases where legislation doesn’t fully satisfy everyone - and that occurs irrespective of where we draw the lines between legal and illegal. In that regard, this Law is no different to the weekly discussion on DOGSO or reckless/excessive force.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

magpie1892

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #35 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 13:07 »
For me the Forest defender sticks his foot out to block the cross, from Isak in the first instance this is surely deliberate play as he has intentionally played the ball and it wasnt an something like an accidental deflection.


The LOTG guidance for offside says;

2. Offside offence
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:
(...)

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

(...)

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

No change to Law 11 is necessary but, to reflect football’s expectation, the guidelines for distinguishing between ‘deliberate play’ and ‘deflection’ are clarified as follows:

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

passing the ball to a team-mate; orgaining possession of the ball; orclearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

<B>If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.</b>

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of itThe ball was not moving quicklyThe direction of the ball was not unexpectedThe player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/controlA ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

rustyref

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,602
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #36 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 13:22 »
For me the Forest defender sticks his foot out to block the cross, from Isak in the first instance this is surely deliberate play as he has intentionally played the ball and it wasnt an something like an accidental deflection.


The LOTG guidance for offside says;

2. Offside offence
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:
(...)

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

(...)

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

No change to Law 11 is necessary but, to reflect football’s expectation, the guidelines for distinguishing between ‘deliberate play’ and ‘deflection’ are clarified as follows:

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

passing the ball to a team-mate; orgaining possession of the ball; orclearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

<B>If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.</b>

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of itThe ball was not moving quicklyThe direction of the ball was not unexpectedThe player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/controlA ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

This is one situation where quoting the actual laws doesn't really work, as the offside law has been superseded by the IFAB bulletin posted earlier by Affy_moose.

Affy_Moose

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
  • Scottish Match Official
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #37 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 13:27 »
Law 11 as it’s written would suggest onside. That’s because this decision would 100% have been onside last season.

The updated guidance (unhelpfully not in the current LotG) is available here: https://www.theifab.com/news/law-11-offside-deliberate-play-guidelines-clarified/

The criteria to consider is this:

The following criteria should be used, as appropriate, as indicators that a player was in control of the ball and, as a result, ‘deliberately played’ the ball:

1. The ball travelled from distance and the player had a clear view of it
2. The ball was not moving quickly
3. The direction of the ball was not unexpected
4. The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
5. A ball moving on the ground is easier to play than a ball in the air

I had some difficulty with this initially at the beginning of the season, particularly clip with Diego Godin.

I had some time with FIFA officials and someone on IFAB and that helped provide clarity.


magpie1892

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 356
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #38 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 14:01 »
Think i understand now, thanks

Tweed

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #39 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 18:17 »
Just watched it a few times and tried to apply the guidance as wrote, I think I'm pretty smart and I think I could make a decent case for either decision.  But on balance I agree with the decision they got to, as I don't think it feels right that a player should get that sort of advantage for being offside when he was the initial target of the ball.  And I think that's the overarching place the guidelines take me to as well.

Game of Throw Ins

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #40 on: Sat 18 Mar 2023 20:13 »
I know there has always been occasional disagreements over the interpretation of the offside law (Leeds v West Brom 1971 ?) but in general I feel offside should be something as near to black and white as possible. It seems crazy to me that we currently have a law where not even referees can agree on the interpretation. See also handball.
Agree Agree x 2 View List

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: Forest v Newcastle - P Tierney
« Reply #41 on: Mon 22 May 2023 16:21 »
By way of an update, Dale Johnson has posted in his latest weekly VAR column that the decision to disallow the Newcastle goal in this game for offside was regarded as an incorrect VAR intervention by the Independent Panel which assesses Key Match Incidents in the Premier League.