BFTG United (A)

[Millsy]

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Only other highly experienced and respected officials disagree that they got it right. OK, he's been retired some time now but Keith Hackett says the Assistant Reg got it right at the outset and Moss was wrong to interfere.

Upson spoke a lot of sense on MOTD when he stated that he felt Lukaku was interfering with play in that he moved to partially obstruct Richards making it difficult for him to get his tackle in and thus conceding the penalty. OK Upson is speaking as a defender and former Royal but nevertheless it does look a bit like that.

Interesting.

[Millsy]

Cheers SCIAG. But now I think it should not have been given. Bear with me please....

I haven't rewatched it since your reply but I guess for me the confusion is whether or not Fred is fouling by being in an offside position and clearly looking to accept the ball (which he then did), and so clearly interfering in play. As you know, offside is given even before, or even without recipients touching the ball, which is why this is so confusing and interesting. So the *moment* Mata touches the ball that whole snapshot of a situation i.e. Mata has touched the ball with the intention for it to get to Fred, who is clearly interfering in play just by being where he is, in the offside triangle, and clearly with the intention of touching the ball, so that snapshot of a situation is a foul whether or not Fred touches the ball... in that moment a foul has occurred. It is THEN that Richards floors Mata.

So really, it should not have been given, arguably.

And this makes more sense because one could argue that RIchards, in that split second of a stressful scenario saw that Fred was in a dangerous position, saw that Mata was just about to pass to him, and - credit to the lad who after Swansea I argued shouldn't wear a Reading shirt again! - therefore having the presence of mind and foresight to see what was going on had little option but to risk a foul by doing everything he could to prevent that. Good man! Actually in my mind a brilliant move and I forgive the young lad for his Swansea lapses. So yeah Fred was clearly interfering in play by causing this confusion in the receiving position he was in. To put it more simply... I'm not sure subconsciously Richards would have gone in if Fred wasn't where he was. His offside foul positioning clearly interfered in play and lead to the foul tackle.

Interesting....

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Only other highly experienced and respected officials disagree that they got it right. OK, he's been retired some time now but Keith Hackett says the Assistant Reg got it right at the outset and Moss was wrong to interfere.

Upson spoke a lot of sense on MOTD when he stated that he felt Lukaku was interfering with play in that he moved to partially obstruct Richards making it difficult for him to get his tackle in and thus conceding the penalty. OK Upson is speaking as a defender and former Royal but nevertheless it does look a bit like that.

Interesting, thank you.

[Platypuss]

Wasn't sensational.

Take your tongue out of the players rear ends, they have done nothing for us all season.

How dare you be positive and supportive RJ.

It's a dishonest opinion. The players deserve absolutely nothing like the praise in the above post. It is a deeply immature reaction and typical of our supporters. They forget all the shit we have been served up this season because we just happened to not be embarrassed at Manchester United.

It's never wrong to be positive and supportive.
Try it some time, you might enjoy games more.

[Millsy]

Being offside is not a foul. Offside and fouls are different offences.

Thanks Ian. Agreed, there is a difference, but it is still an offence of some sort, whatever we call it I suppose.

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

Likewise, quoting SCIAG:

"1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence."

The implication being that had he been interfering with play it would have been an offence and it may then change the order of events and whether or not the foul was relevant?

As one of the forum's brighter chaps on HNA, with an eye for discussion, I trust you will at least understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree (without overloading your brain capacity and hurling insults, like some who shall remain Nameless).

To help me understand this by exaggerating the issue... I wonder.. imagine there is a player blatantly goalhanging standing right in front of the keeper and obviously 20 yards offside and one of his team mates passes the ball to him from the half way line. Now imagine that before the ball gets to that player, one of the defenders sees the offside flag and catches the ball mid flight, what would happen? Would he be done for committing a hand ball? Ok so now... let's say he catches the ball whilst the flag was on its way up but hadn't gone above the linesman's shoulder yet and before the ref sees it. What then?

See what I'm trying to say?

VAR introduces football to its very own version of Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment....

The key is the difference between being in an offside position and commiting an offside offence. It is not an offence to be in an offside position in general, so a call needs to be made as to whether an offence has been made (by interfering in play in some way).

For VAR to overturn a ref's decision it has to be a clear and obvious error.

VAR spotted the foul by Richards, which is a clear and definite foul. It occurred before the ball got to Fred so whilst he is in an offside position he has not yet commuted an offside offence so the Richards foul comes first.

Thanks again for you input.

Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.

If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.

[Millsy]

Being offside is not a foul. Offside and fouls are different offences.

Thanks Ian. Agreed, there is a difference, but it is still an offence of some sort, whatever we call it I suppose.

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

Likewise, quoting SCIAG:

"1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence."

The implication being that had he been interfering with play it would have been an offence and it may then change the order of events and whether or not the foul was relevant?

As one of the forum's brighter chaps on HNA, with an eye for discussion, I trust you will at least understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree (without overloading your brain capacity and hurling insults, like some who shall remain Nameless).

To help me understand this by exaggerating the issue... I wonder.. imagine there is a player blatantly goalhanging standing right in front of the keeper and obviously 20 yards offside and one of his team mates passes the ball to him from the half way line. Now imagine that before the ball gets to that player, one of the defenders sees the offside flag and catches the ball mid flight, what would happen? Would he be done for committing a hand ball? Ok so now... let's say he catches the ball whilst the flag was on its way up but hadn't gone above the linesman's shoulder yet and before the ref sees it. What then?

See what I'm trying to say?

VAR introduces football to its very own version of Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment....

The key is the difference between being in an offside position and commiting an offside offence. It is not an offence to be in an offside position in general, so a call needs to be made as to whether an offence has been made (by interfering in play in some way).

For VAR to overturn a ref's decision it has to be a clear and obvious error.

VAR spotted the foul by Richards, which is a clear and definite foul. It occurred before the ball got to Fred so whilst he is in an offside position he has not yet commuted an offside offence so the Richards foul comes first.

Thanks again for you input.

Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.

If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.

[Old Man Andrews]

How dare you be positive and supportive RJ.

It's a dishonest opinion. The players deserve absolutely nothing like the praise in the above post. It is a deeply immature reaction and typical of our supporters. They forget all the shit we have been served up this season because we just happened to not be embarrassed at Manchester United.

It's never wrong to be positive and supportive.
Try it some time, you might enjoy games more.

Yeah let's be positive eh. We are 23rd in the league, we have a group of players who don't care about the supporters or the badge they wear on their chests but let's lick their arseholes and invent fake positivity. Nothing to be positive about at all.

[Platypuss]

Oh, you supporters.

[Sutekh]

Why are you saying being offside is a foul ? That’s just nonsense !
Most of the rest of your analysis is just crazy.
The officialsgot it right and trying to rewrite the offside law whilst seemingly under the influence of mind altering substances isn’tgoing to change that.

Only other highly experienced and respected officials disagree that they got it right. OK, he's been retired some time now but Keith Hackett says the Assistant Reg got it right at the outset and Moss was wrong to interfere.

Upson spoke a lot of sense on MOTD when he stated that he felt Lukaku was interfering with play in that he moved to partially obstruct Richards making it difficult for him to get his tackle in and thus conceding the penalty. OK Upson is speaking as a defender and former Royal but nevertheless it does look a bit like that.

Interesting, thank you.

Watched it thriugh several times in Sat afternoon and felt that the original decision was correct. Offside.

Upson’s subsequent comments on MotD served to reinforce that fact for me.

As I said earlier in this thread, Cloughie’s quote that if a player isn’t interfering with play then he shouldn’t be on the pitch is true and it all goes back to the persistent and completely unnecessary fiddling about with the offside law in the first place. It was such a simple law that has now been made so utterly confusing to everyone.

[Old Man Andrews]

Oh, you supporters.

Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.

This forum reflects that.

[Nameless]

Thanks Ian. Agreed, there is a difference, but it is still an offence of some sort, whatever we call it I suppose.

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

Likewise, quoting SCIAG:

"1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence."

The implication being that had he been interfering with play it would have been an offence and it may then change the order of events and whether or not the foul was relevant?

As one of the forum's brighter chaps on HNA, with an eye for discussion, I trust you will at least understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree (without overloading your brain capacity and hurling insults, like some who shall remain Nameless).

To help me understand this by exaggerating the issue... I wonder.. imagine there is a player blatantly goalhanging standing right in front of the keeper and obviously 20 yards offside and one of his team mates passes the ball to him from the half way line. Now imagine that before the ball gets to that player, one of the defenders sees the offside flag and catches the ball mid flight, what would happen? Would he be done for committing a hand ball? Ok so now... let's say he catches the ball whilst the flag was on its way up but hadn't gone above the linesman's shoulder yet and before the ref sees it. What then?

See what I'm trying to say?

VAR introduces football to its very own version of Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment....

The key is the difference between being in an offside position and commiting an offside offence. It is not an offence to be in an offside position in general, so a call needs to be made as to whether an offence has been made (by interfering in play in some way).

For VAR to overturn a ref's decision it has to be a clear and obvious error.

VAR spotted the foul by Richards, which is a clear and definite foul. It occurred before the ball got to Fred so whilst he is in an offside position he has not yet commuted an offside offence so the Richards foul comes first.

Thanks again for you input.

Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.

If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.

But Fred cannot have been interfering until he played the ball.
If the ball had gone in hisdirection, but realising he was in an offside position he let it go past him and a team mate had run from an onside position and scored that would have been completely legitimate. Refer back to the repeated explanation of the difference between being in an offside position (which is not an offence) and being offside.
There is no such thing as an ‘interfering position’. You can be in an offside position, and you can then interfere with play/an opponent.

[Snowflake Royal]

Reading played well. Much better than expected or that our league position would suggest, but it was a straight forward win.

Completely agree.

Others, including OGS in his post match interviews, didn't agree.

That's nice. Although it's probably worth remembering that people being interviewed by the media tend to stick to fairly meaningless platitudes rather than express their genuine considered opinion. Especially if being fed questions to a particular narrative.

[Snowflake Royal]

Thanks Ian. Agreed, there is a difference, but it is still an offence of some sort, whatever we call it I suppose.

So why is it that BT Sport were trying to figure out if Lukaku's offside position was offside? Clearly that would have been a material consideration in whether or not RIchards' foul could warrant a penalty.

Likewise, quoting SCIAG:

"1) Ball comes into Mata. Lukaku is in an offside position, but isn't interfering with play or an opponent so hasn't committed an offence."

The implication being that had he been interfering with play it would have been an offence and it may then change the order of events and whether or not the foul was relevant?

As one of the forum's brighter chaps on HNA, with an eye for discussion, I trust you will at least understand what I'm trying to say even if you disagree (without overloading your brain capacity and hurling insults, like some who shall remain Nameless).

To help me understand this by exaggerating the issue... I wonder.. imagine there is a player blatantly goalhanging standing right in front of the keeper and obviously 20 yards offside and one of his team mates passes the ball to him from the half way line. Now imagine that before the ball gets to that player, one of the defenders sees the offside flag and catches the ball mid flight, what would happen? Would he be done for committing a hand ball? Ok so now... let's say he catches the ball whilst the flag was on its way up but hadn't gone above the linesman's shoulder yet and before the ref sees it. What then?

See what I'm trying to say?

VAR introduces football to its very own version of Wheeler's delayed choice double slit experiment....

The key is the difference between being in an offside position and commiting an offside offence. It is not an offence to be in an offside position in general, so a call needs to be made as to whether an offence has been made (by interfering in play in some way).

For VAR to overturn a ref's decision it has to be a clear and obvious error.

VAR spotted the foul by Richards, which is a clear and definite foul. It occurred before the ball got to Fred so whilst he is in an offside position he has not yet commuted an offside offence so the Richards foul comes first.

Thanks again for you input.

Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.

If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.

No. If you're arguing Fred is interfering with play before Richards makes his challenge you're just wrong. If that were the case, any player in an offside position would be committing an offside offence as soon as the ball is played even vaguely in their direction, whether they move for it, challenge the keeper or not.

Fred isn't active until he's swinging at the ball. Lukaku would be active at the point he's interfering with a challenge.

So the sequence is:

1. Fred high boot - both players doing it and it's not dangerous - no foul
2. Lukaku affecting Richards - negligible, not given by the officials on the pitch, no clear and obvious error - can't be overruled as offside
3. Richards takes out Mata - missed by ref, clear and obvious error - overturned by VAR
4. Fred offside - only when he takes a swing at the ball, occurs after Richards offence so irrelevant

Penalty.

Simple.

[Hound]

I’m surprised anyone cares that much about the penalty decision as to spend pages and pages arguing about it.

Have to admit to not really liking VAR in its current form though. Who wants to sit through 3 minutes of the ref decided what to do? Not like in cricket where you can actually watch the decision making process, and actually can add to the atmosphere

[Millsy]

The key is the difference between being in an offside position and commiting an offside offence. It is not an offence to be in an offside position in general, so a call needs to be made as to whether an offence has been made (by interfering in play in some way).

For VAR to overturn a ref's decision it has to be a clear and obvious error.

VAR spotted the foul by Richards, which is a clear and definite foul. It occurred before the ball got to Fred so whilst he is in an offside position he has not yet commuted an offside offence so the Richards foul comes first.

Thanks again for you input.

Of course I get all that but read my original post. Basically I'm arguing Fred *was* interfering in play. He was afterall in a scoring position and lo and behold received the ball and scored. He saw it and intended it, Mata saw it and intended it, Jak could see it was intentional, Richards could see the move was intentional. He was interfering. He wasn't there by accident. The whole situation very likely had a direct bearing on what RIchards did.

If Lukaku being in an interfering position would alter the penalty shout, then so would this and the question becomes was he in an interfering position. To think that he wasn't given he was expecting to receive the ball and everyone in his vicinity altered their play accordingly, it is ludicrous to me to accept that him being there wasn't interfere in play at all before he got the ball.

No. If you're arguing Fred is interfering with play before Richards makes his challenge you're just wrong. If that were the case, any player in an offside position would be committing an offside offence as soon as the ball is played even vaguely in their direction, whether they move for it, challenge the keeper or not.

Fred isn't active until he's swinging at the ball. Lukaku would be active at the point he's interfering with a challenge.

So the sequence is:

1. Fred high boot - both players doing it and it's not dangerous - no foul
2. Lukaku affecting Richards - negligible, not given by the officials on the pitch, no clear and obvious error - can't be overruled as offside
3. Richards takes out Mata - missed by ref, clear and obvious error - overturned by VAR
4. Fred offside - only when he takes a swing at the ball, occurs after Richards offence so irrelevant

Penalty.

Simple.

No not any player. Many times not as you rightly say, but sometimes a player IS deemed to have caused an offence despite not touching the ball. It does happen. Yet some (not you) evidently still believe you have to actually touch a ball to have caused an offside offence. Not true:

"A player does not necessarily have to touch the ball to influence play. They are still offside if, in the opinion of the referee, they are judged to be: Interfering with an opponent: If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside."

(By offside the above, for the purposes of this discussion means committing an offside offence, not just being offside.)

So to reiterate the issue here: Fred was making a "gesture or movement" which 'deceived and distracted' the Reading team by running into that offside position, putting the Reading players (eg Richards) under the pressure to act in a way he would not normally necessarily have acted had Fred not made this run.

THis is of course open to interpretation and opinion and you may feel no RIchards would have tackled him even if Fred was not there. Fair enough. But this discussion centres around how much of a "deceiving" "distracting" "gesture or movement" this run was - and that arguably one could see it this way.

I would argue the fact that he made the run with the clear intent to receive the ball and take a shot suggests that the players would have felt the same, because this is exactly what happened moments later, so this was arguably a distracting run affecting the Reading players' ability to play the ball. Thus an offence. Thus the pass an offence. Thus arguably the foul occurred after an offence. Thus it would be arguably acceptable for the ref to not give the pen, totally independently of the Lukaku situation.

[leon]

Oh, you supporters.

Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.

This forum reflects that.

I’d find another forum then. One that reflects your views and core values

[Nameless]

Gross (repeated) use of the word ‘arguable’ !

Well done on the fishing trip.

[sandman]

Oh, you supporters.

Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.

This forum reflects that.

I’d find another forum then. One that reflects your views and core values

His views and core values seem to consist of being a miserable cnt. Which seems to fit with this forum tbf.

[leon]

Sadly it has got to the point where there are 95% of Reading supporters who have got no idea and will allow the club and the players to walk all over them. They also don't understand football. The other 5% of supporters are sensible and are sick of being taken advantage of.

This forum reflects that.

I’d find another forum then. One that reflects your views and core values

His views and core values seem to consist of being a miserable cnt. Which seems to fit with this forum tbf.

Ha, yes. I suppose it’s a question of out miserable cnuting other miserable cnuts.

[biff]

Keith Hackett

"I am the biggest supporter of VAR. In England however we are doing our best to make something simple difficult. Darren Cann one of the Worlds top Assistant referees correctly flagged for offside. VAR Moss decides to get involved and say PK. Oh dear check sequence of events"

Halsey agrees. Wrong decision.

[Zip]

Irrespective of whether it was a pen or not it’s about time one or two decisions went our way. The 50/50 calls are going against us. On the balance of probabilities that has to change pretty soon.