Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Forum index | Previous Thread | Next thread
Match officials today.... 21:05 - Feb 19 with 9754 viewsWatfordR

Either this was the worst collective performance I think I've seen at LR, or the laws of the game are now so convoluted that it's impossible for officials to be wrong no matter what they do.

I'm going to watch the full match back again as and when it's available, but I'm struggling to think of one major decision they got right:

Neither the ref of the lino knew whether the Hull goal had crossed the line - it clearly had

Forss should have been red carded just before half time - ref saw nothing, the fourth official did see something, but presumably not the kick, right in front of him

Albert was completely cleaned out by Ingram and that ought to have been a pen

Albert's goal should have stood - astonishing that neither ref nor linesman apparently saw the deflection that played him on irrespective of where the lino thought he was in the lead up

Countless offside decisions ruled incorrectly, including the ludicrous flagging of Albert in the first half after the crossfield pass which their LB got caught under. It simply isn't possible for the lino to be looking at where Albert was at the same time the ball was played from 50 yards away on the other side of the pitch.

The Ingram incident which I clocked via the scoreboard as having been near enough sixteen minutes. So all the time wasting by them, all the watch pointing by the ref, all that added up to -1 extra minutes.

Clear corner for us just before the end given as a goal kick

Just utter ineptitude. Can't be arsed listening to all the "well these things will even themselves out". I'd rather I wasn't having to keep count of the hopeless decisions and trying to work out whether we won or lost on aggregate over the season. There's enough money in the game to pay and train full time officials so that we don't have to put up with such a lottery of incompetence every single game.
[Post edited 19 Feb 2022 21:12]
5
Match officials today.... on 14:37 - Feb 20 with 1670 viewsRangersw12

From what I've seen Albert wasn't offside when the ball was played so the goal should have stood!?
0
Match officials today.... on 14:39 - Feb 20 with 1653 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 12:06 - Feb 20 by Northernr

Just watched the Albert goal back, and whether he's level or not a Hull player in the box plays at the ball and diverts it to him, is that not starting a new phase of play? Even if he is offside to begin with, which is debatable, "it's not an offence to be standing in an offside position" we keep being told and the Hull lad diverts the ball to him. Interested to hear from the actual referees on here about that.


A deflection is NOT a new phase of play.

Can we put this one to bed. He looks onside in that still, but please, the deflection has nothing to do with it.

This (from LOTG) MIGHT help

This is when a player CAN be penalised for offside:_
or
- 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
- been deliberately saved by any opponent
1
Match officials today.... on 14:43 - Feb 20 with 1629 viewsQPRSteve

"Defelectruion is aboyg red heretinbh hera as i soad abovemits very tight a sto whter hge os offsode or not."

Do you have any Welsh blood in you Pinner? Or are you a relative of Stanley Unwin?
[Post edited 20 Feb 2022 14:44]
0
Match officials today.... on 14:46 - Feb 20 with 1617 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 14:37 - Feb 20 by Rangersw12

From what I've seen Albert wasn't offside when the ball was played so the goal should have stood!?


Yes that's the pertinent point.

VAR/stills - as we can see the resolution isn't good enough to stop the frame on the exact moment the attacker FIRST played the ball - hence the big problem I have with VAR over these close ones. The angle on this isn't in line either.

BUT in real life, without VAR, benefit of doubt should always go with attacker, but its difficult because in real life AR doesn't get the benefit of a 'still' - but on balance I think it looks onside to me, but NOT because of any deflection!
0
Match officials today.... on 15:01 - Feb 20 with 1563 viewsNorthernr

Match officials today.... on 14:46 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

Yes that's the pertinent point.

VAR/stills - as we can see the resolution isn't good enough to stop the frame on the exact moment the attacker FIRST played the ball - hence the big problem I have with VAR over these close ones. The angle on this isn't in line either.

BUT in real life, without VAR, benefit of doubt should always go with attacker, but its difficult because in real life AR doesn't get the benefit of a 'still' - but on balance I think it looks onside to me, but NOT because of any deflection!


Can you explain why please mate - because the Hull player makes a very clear play at the ball and diverts it. Isn’t that a new phase? Genuinely interested, not having a pop.
2
Match officials today.... on 15:03 - Feb 20 with 1553 viewsWatfordR

Match officials today.... on 14:39 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

A deflection is NOT a new phase of play.

Can we put this one to bed. He looks onside in that still, but please, the deflection has nothing to do with it.

This (from LOTG) MIGHT help

This is when a player CAN be penalised for offside:_
or
- 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
- been deliberately saved by any opponent


Thanks for clearing that up, I've clearly misremembered or misunderstood some of your previous posts, so my apologies.

The definition of "deflected off". Suggests to me an element of involuntary involvement. In yesterday's incident, the ball didn't deflect off their defender. He moved to it to try to block a shot. Is that different to a defender miskicking a ball so that it ends up at the feet of a player in an offside position?
1
Match officials today.... on 15:11 - Feb 20 with 1522 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 15:01 - Feb 20 by Northernr

Can you explain why please mate - because the Hull player makes a very clear play at the ball and diverts it. Isn’t that a new phase? Genuinely interested, not having a pop.


You never have a pop, so no need for the apology.

I see (sort of) where you're coming from, so lets try another angle.

A normal shot that defender tries to block, but ends up deflecting into the goal, (unless shot off target) we all call that a deflection, not an own goal - unlike Albert's v Boro'?

Or maybe that actual cross yesterday goes in off the defender and not to Albert, we wouldn't be calling that an OG - you would be saying in your report "QPR took the lead through a wicked deflection" no?

Does that help (probably not?!)

As I say I still think its too tight for the AR to call IMHO.

ALSO, its not been mentioned but he was actually interacting with the crowd after the FIRST offside he (correctly) didn't call v Hull player - now that's a big no no at any level - sure he will be picked up on that IF observer spotted it.

Unlike me, i know, but I just didn;t like ihis biody languahge all game - said to my son he looked like someone who had 'won' a "Be a lino for a day" competition - a s I say that's harsh for me I know, but just as I saw it.
-1
Match officials today.... on 15:14 - Feb 20 with 1501 viewsNorthernr

Match officials today.... on 15:11 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

You never have a pop, so no need for the apology.

I see (sort of) where you're coming from, so lets try another angle.

A normal shot that defender tries to block, but ends up deflecting into the goal, (unless shot off target) we all call that a deflection, not an own goal - unlike Albert's v Boro'?

Or maybe that actual cross yesterday goes in off the defender and not to Albert, we wouldn't be calling that an OG - you would be saying in your report "QPR took the lead through a wicked deflection" no?

Does that help (probably not?!)

As I say I still think its too tight for the AR to call IMHO.

ALSO, its not been mentioned but he was actually interacting with the crowd after the FIRST offside he (correctly) didn't call v Hull player - now that's a big no no at any level - sure he will be picked up on that IF observer spotted it.

Unlike me, i know, but I just didn;t like ihis biody languahge all game - said to my son he looked like someone who had 'won' a "Be a lino for a day" competition - a s I say that's harsh for me I know, but just as I saw it.


Yeh I noticed that and think it sets you up for a fall more than it endears ppl to you.

I guess for me on this one like Watford the defender makes such an obvious play at the ball, rather than inadvertently deflecting a shot/cross, that it’s almost like a back pass and should be considered a new phase.
1
Login to get fewer ads

Match officials today.... on 15:14 - Feb 20 with 1498 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 15:03 - Feb 20 by WatfordR

Thanks for clearing that up, I've clearly misremembered or misunderstood some of your previous posts, so my apologies.

The definition of "deflected off". Suggests to me an element of involuntary involvement. In yesterday's incident, the ball didn't deflect off their defender. He moved to it to try to block a shot. Is that different to a defender miskicking a ball so that it ends up at the feet of a player in an offside position?


Fair enough mate - never going to agree on every ref's every decision.

See my "attempt" at trying to define a deflection to Clive!
0
Match officials today.... on 15:17 - Feb 20 with 1472 viewsQPR_John

Can Pinner define what is deliberate and what is not within the rules of the game. If a defender attempts to play the ball but is unsuccessful and just deflects it Is that counted as deliberate or just a deflection. There is that famous quote that a player should not be on the pitch if he is not interfering with play and similarly in this case what was the defender doing if not deliberately trying to play the ball.

Did not read the earlier post before posting this. Don’t thing the analogy re an own goal really fits.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2022 15:21]
0
Match officials today.... on 15:19 - Feb 20 with 1474 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 15:14 - Feb 20 by Northernr

Yeh I noticed that and think it sets you up for a fall more than it endears ppl to you.

I guess for me on this one like Watford the defender makes such an obvious play at the ball, rather than inadvertently deflecting a shot/cross, that it’s almost like a back pass and should be considered a new phase.


Interaction - yes at my humble level it IS possible, but as you say, I've found neither side ends up being happy with the resultant 'conversations'!!!!!!!!

Deflection - good discussion, we're have to leave it there, its like VAR no one is ever going to agree on every decision.

BUT while we're here, what about the 'shove ' on Chair, that was worth a shout I thought, maybe, just maybe not quite enough for a pen, but wouldn't have been shocked if that had been given.
0
Match officials today.... on 15:35 - Feb 20 with 1430 viewsWatfordR

Match officials today.... on 15:14 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

Fair enough mate - never going to agree on every ref's every decision.

See my "attempt" at trying to define a deflection to Clive!


I've seen it mate and I'm still struggling!

I suppose the thing I can't get my head around is whether "deflected off" suggests an involuntary outcome or whether it just means "any time it doesn't work out how the player wants".

To my mind "deflected off" is something like a defender stood in an area where he thinks he's preventing a direct attempt on goal, and the shot hits him on the shoulder/leg/head and goes somewhere he'd rather it didn't; he's had no willing part in the outcome.

Yesterday's incident isn't what I'd consider a deflection; the action (a shot) has taken place and he's deliberately reacted (by moving towards the ball) to try to prevent the shot reaching the goal. The fact the ball has then dropped somewhere the defender didn't want it to (to Albert) surely doesn't make it a deflection. It's just a defensive clearance that didn't go where he wanted it to.

That's kind of why I asked, is "deflected off" defined in the LOTG, or is it just up to the officials to decide what "deflected off" means to them?
1
Match officials today.... on 15:37 - Feb 20 with 1417 viewsQPR_John

Match officials today.... on 15:19 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

Interaction - yes at my humble level it IS possible, but as you say, I've found neither side ends up being happy with the resultant 'conversations'!!!!!!!!

Deflection - good discussion, we're have to leave it there, its like VAR no one is ever going to agree on every decision.

BUT while we're here, what about the 'shove ' on Chair, that was worth a shout I thought, maybe, just maybe not quite enough for a pen, but wouldn't have been shocked if that had been given.


Sorry to labour the point but I have just seen the incident and if that was not a deliberate play by the Hull defender I don’t know what is. It could be argued that had the defender not deflected the ball it would not have reached Adomah.
1
Match officials today.... on 15:38 - Feb 20 with 1421 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 15:35 - Feb 20 by WatfordR

I've seen it mate and I'm still struggling!

I suppose the thing I can't get my head around is whether "deflected off" suggests an involuntary outcome or whether it just means "any time it doesn't work out how the player wants".

To my mind "deflected off" is something like a defender stood in an area where he thinks he's preventing a direct attempt on goal, and the shot hits him on the shoulder/leg/head and goes somewhere he'd rather it didn't; he's had no willing part in the outcome.

Yesterday's incident isn't what I'd consider a deflection; the action (a shot) has taken place and he's deliberately reacted (by moving towards the ball) to try to prevent the shot reaching the goal. The fact the ball has then dropped somewhere the defender didn't want it to (to Albert) surely doesn't make it a deflection. It's just a defensive clearance that didn't go where he wanted it to.

That's kind of why I asked, is "deflected off" defined in the LOTG, or is it just up to the officials to decide what "deflected off" means to them?


No definition of 'deflected off' v 'deliberately plays' in LOTG.

As I said to Clive, see you point, just don't agree!
0
Match officials today... on 15:48 - Feb 20 with 1389 viewsQPR_John

Match officials today.... on 15:38 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

No definition of 'deflected off' v 'deliberately plays' in LOTG.

As I said to Clive, see you point, just don't agree!


It seems the LOTG are now deliberately worded so referees can justify their every decision.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2022 15:55]
3
Match officials today.... on 16:08 - Feb 20 with 1350 viewsLogman

I thought the ref was very poor. He had the chance to impose himself and cut out the time wasting when Hull were going down and taking a long time to re-start but he completely bottled it.
2
Match officials today.... on 16:45 - Feb 20 with 1291 viewsdavman

Match officials today.... on 14:18 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

I was just going to post all that Steve!

A deflection makes no difference to offside, looks tight on Clive's still on twitter, but the deflection has nothing to do with it. Their player definitely off in Clive's 2nd still, but maybe ref/AR thought our player played the ball (NOT a deflection) ?, if he didn't that one's obviously wrong.

Officials never give these on the line ones with GLT - what's the point in hvaing it if you're not going to use it????!!!!!!!!

I thought ref was OK - 15 mins was bang on as you say.

I would have cautioned Hull player for booting the ball the whole length of the field, that's an obvious yellow missed.

The 3 big in/out calls near the end - 2 GK v corner and Alberts throw in, were all spot on from my angle in T block.

Other offside calls all looked OK to me.


Even that Lewis-Potter one where he shot across the goal? Looked a million miles off even from my position behind the other goal and then double that from the highlights.

Think your being over-charitable to your mates again...

Can we go out yet?
Poll: What would you take for Willock if a bid comes this month?

2
Match officials today.... on 16:46 - Feb 20 with 1289 viewsdavman

Match officials today.... on 14:39 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

A deflection is NOT a new phase of play.

Can we put this one to bed. He looks onside in that still, but please, the deflection has nothing to do with it.

This (from LOTG) MIGHT help

This is when a player CAN be penalised for offside:_
or
- 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
- been deliberately saved by any opponent


I think that is what I said earlier...


Can we go out yet?
Poll: What would you take for Willock if a bid comes this month?

0
Match officials today.... on 16:59 - Feb 20 with 1236 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 16:45 - Feb 20 by davman

Even that Lewis-Potter one where he shot across the goal? Looked a million miles off even from my position behind the other goal and then double that from the highlights.

Think your being over-charitable to your mates again...


Clearly haven't read all my posts mate. I've said:-

1) The offside Hull one clearly offside if we haven't played the ball
2) Albert offside, looks tight to me so should be called onside
3) I didn't like body language of ER AR and the fact he engaged with the crowd
4) Hull player should have cautioned for booting the ball the length of the field

They are NOT 'my mates' and I just call the incidents as I see them, as I've said many times - agree, disagree or hit the ignore button as you see fit, but I'm not having personal insults and sly digs - no need for it.
5
Match officials today.... on 17:10 - Feb 20 with 1204 viewsozranger

Match officials today.... on 15:38 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

No definition of 'deflected off' v 'deliberately plays' in LOTG.

As I said to Clive, see you point, just don't agree!


Surely the definition of 'deliberately plays' or 'playing the ball' means that you have to be in control of your action as opposed to making a play which you do not have control. One could say that at a higher level you would expect players to have control, but then where does one draw the line. In which case there should be no line.

Thus, if we state that a play of the ball, by the head, body (not arms) or legs is done in a fashion whereby the person has control of the ball (i.e., its direction, speed, etc) as opposed to sticking a part of the body out in the hope that it will go in a certain direction, a shot blocked, etc, then that can be defined as a deliberate play.

The idea of contested v uncontested also affects this situation. If a defender makes a decision uncontested or not under any duress (which is more common with a deflection as this is an attempt to block the shot), then that should be a deliberate play. An example is a cross where, uncontested, the defender heads the ball towards his keeper and a player originally in an offside position now takes advantage. However, if two opposing players contest a ball from a cross, and it falls from a defender's head/body/etc to a player who was in an offside position at the time of the cross, I believe this is now an offside situation, but would need Pinner to confirm.
0
Match officials today.... on 17:36 - Feb 20 with 1145 viewsPinnerPaul

Match officials today.... on 17:10 - Feb 20 by ozranger

Surely the definition of 'deliberately plays' or 'playing the ball' means that you have to be in control of your action as opposed to making a play which you do not have control. One could say that at a higher level you would expect players to have control, but then where does one draw the line. In which case there should be no line.

Thus, if we state that a play of the ball, by the head, body (not arms) or legs is done in a fashion whereby the person has control of the ball (i.e., its direction, speed, etc) as opposed to sticking a part of the body out in the hope that it will go in a certain direction, a shot blocked, etc, then that can be defined as a deliberate play.

The idea of contested v uncontested also affects this situation. If a defender makes a decision uncontested or not under any duress (which is more common with a deflection as this is an attempt to block the shot), then that should be a deliberate play. An example is a cross where, uncontested, the defender heads the ball towards his keeper and a player originally in an offside position now takes advantage. However, if two opposing players contest a ball from a cross, and it falls from a defender's head/body/etc to a player who was in an offside position at the time of the cross, I believe this is now an offside situation, but would need Pinner to confirm.


Haven't really got much to add to the above.

Just know that I would be calling that sort of contact we saw yesterday by the defender a deflection and so would most referees.

Don't take this the wrong way but nothing I say or anyone else says is going to make the other change their mind now.

On your general point, I think its just an instinctive thing - did the defender head the ball or did it just hit his head - like many things its a judgement call and with all judgement calls you're going to get disagreement.
0
Match officials today.... on 17:44 - Feb 20 with 1132 viewsQPR_John

Match officials today.... on 17:10 - Feb 20 by ozranger

Surely the definition of 'deliberately plays' or 'playing the ball' means that you have to be in control of your action as opposed to making a play which you do not have control. One could say that at a higher level you would expect players to have control, but then where does one draw the line. In which case there should be no line.

Thus, if we state that a play of the ball, by the head, body (not arms) or legs is done in a fashion whereby the person has control of the ball (i.e., its direction, speed, etc) as opposed to sticking a part of the body out in the hope that it will go in a certain direction, a shot blocked, etc, then that can be defined as a deliberate play.

The idea of contested v uncontested also affects this situation. If a defender makes a decision uncontested or not under any duress (which is more common with a deflection as this is an attempt to block the shot), then that should be a deliberate play. An example is a cross where, uncontested, the defender heads the ball towards his keeper and a player originally in an offside position now takes advantage. However, if two opposing players contest a ball from a cross, and it falls from a defender's head/body/etc to a player who was in an offside position at the time of the cross, I believe this is now an offside situation, but would need Pinner to confirm.


“ Surely the definition of 'deliberately plays' or 'playing the ball' means that you have to be in control of your action as opposed to making a play which you do not have control.”

Happy to accept “control” as the criteria but I don’t accept deliberate play requires control. The Hull defender made a conscious decision to get to the ball and by any definition that must be considered deliberate. If deliberate is the criteria then Adomah was played onside however if control then Adomah was offside. As deliberate or control is not explicitly defined in the LOTG then we will never know.
1
Match officials today.... on 18:14 - Feb 20 with 1087 viewsdavman

Match officials today.... on 16:59 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

Clearly haven't read all my posts mate. I've said:-

1) The offside Hull one clearly offside if we haven't played the ball
2) Albert offside, looks tight to me so should be called onside
3) I didn't like body language of ER AR and the fact he engaged with the crowd
4) Hull player should have cautioned for booting the ball the length of the field

They are NOT 'my mates' and I just call the incidents as I see them, as I've said many times - agree, disagree or hit the ignore button as you see fit, but I'm not having personal insults and sly digs - no need for it.


Apologies. Not intending to have a pop - will think harder about my posts.

I really enjoy your views, Paul and wouldn't want to ignore your views. Always healthy for me to read other viewpoints. I will openly admit I have a prejudice against "professional" referees as I think that their individual inconsistency is mind boggling.

All the time for those who volunteer down the pyramid as it is a hard, thankless job, but if our band of well paid EPL and EFL is really the best we can offer, oh, dear.

No intent at a dig, but reading back, you are right, it read that way - sorry!

Can we go out yet?
Poll: What would you take for Willock if a bid comes this month?

0
Match officials today.... on 18:21 - Feb 20 with 1078 viewsHarbour

Match officials today.... on 14:46 - Feb 20 by PinnerPaul

Yes that's the pertinent point.

VAR/stills - as we can see the resolution isn't good enough to stop the frame on the exact moment the attacker FIRST played the ball - hence the big problem I have with VAR over these close ones. The angle on this isn't in line either.

BUT in real life, without VAR, benefit of doubt should always go with attacker, but its difficult because in real life AR doesn't get the benefit of a 'still' - but on balance I think it looks onside to me, but NOT because of any deflection!


Thanks Paul very helpful explanations from where I was sitting in g block he looked on side and was quite surprised Lino called it off because it did not look marginal. I did not notice the deflection at the time. You win some you lose decisions onto Blackpool hopefully we get back on track with a win certaintly second half performance looked encouraging.
1
Match officials today.... on 20:04 - Feb 20 with 982 viewsBenny_the_Ball

It could've been worse if the offside Hull striker had converted. Thank goodness Dieng got a touch.
[Post edited 20 Feb 2022 20:06]
0
About Us Contact Us Terms & Conditions Privacy Cookies Advertising
© FansNetwork 2024