Both are supposed to happen. Which, in that regard, does mean the referees are doing something a little different, too. No, for two reasons. First, putting the flag up means the AR is out of position for any subsequent decision. Second, as the PRO site notes, despite what we tell players, a flag often causes them to stop. If we get to the point where all offside decisions go to video, maybe. But I imagine we are decades away from something like that being possible. You’ve got to remember that we are only talking about offside decisions very close to goal or very close offside decisions that will directly result in an OGSO if the flag stays down.
But that’s not really the standard. Otherwise almost any deflection would be classified as a deliberate play. Webb’s answer is actually very good from an instructional standpoint. It answers some of the questions I had.
Because it is unfair to the defenders. No matter how much we say, "play to the whistle" the flag has and, for the foreseeable future, will still continue to act as a whistle for defenders. It also goes to the issue of how long do you delay the whistle. You can't have flags go up and referees delaying whistles until the ball is in the net or the attack peters out. It would fundamentally change the game.
I agree. IMO this quote from Webb covers a good chunk of the debate that referees have between deflection vs deliberate play and provides a huge piece of information that could only be gleaned from various clips on the PRO AR website. When I was talking about this subject with other referees at the State Cup a few weeks ago, I used the phrase "instinctive reaction" as a reason to identify a deflection. Multiple other referees felt the instinctive reaction was evidence of a deliberate play.
I get it. "Deliberate" simply means something different when it modifies "play" than it does when it modifies "handling."
Webb, Geiger, and whoever is giving them instruction need to get a dictionary. You can't lunge at a ball and stick your leg out without doing so deliberately. I can't tell you how many texts I've received over this nonsense. As an instructor, I have zero clue how to instruct on this topic moving forward. So I guess we're back to having to be mind readers and determining what the defender wanted or didn't want to do with the ball? It's only deliberate if it's a pass to a teammate, not a play, even though the LOTG say play.
Come on. We've always known the word deliberate in the LOTG does not have the same meaning as the dictionary definition. If it did, we'd only call handling in situations like Maradona, Henry, and Suarez's moments.
And in general most inexperienced referees call handling entirely too often. But aside from that we also have well established criteria to help us evaluate handling situations. Even Feilhaber has come out publicly and said in their preseason meeting with PRO that they were shown videos just like this and they would be considered deliberate plays and not offside. I could care less which side of the fence you fall on whether this should or shouldn't be considered deliberate, but they have opened up a can of worms and have contradicted previous instruction without the language of the LOTG game changing at all.
Without knowing the exact clips Feilhaber was shown, it's hard to comment. We all know this decision is a spectrum. There are clear deflections and there are clear deliberate plays. If the ball in this example is moving a little slower or it's a little closer to the defender then it shifts towards a deliberate play. I'd like to know if PRO feels "this was a deflection, but it was a slightly difficult decision even with video" or if they feel "this is a clear deflection in terms of a defender playing the ball and we consider it an easy decision after seeing it on video". Because if PRO considers the 2nd GIF in my post (Post #11) a close decision, then they probably consider the Kansas City one an easy decision. I do agree though that we need more instruction on how to apply this.
I don't think that's a fair characterization fo what he said at all. Misplays are still plays. But to wipe out OS were looking for a considered action rather than a reactive action (and I think that is the distinction to use in instruction). Is that gray around the edges? Sure--but every decision boundary has gray in it. On most plays, its not that hard to apply; but on the edges it will be. And that is no different from many of the calls we make in every game. More (and consistent) guidance would be helpful, but at the end of the day it is ITOOTR.
There are a few definititions for "deliberate". The first is what people tend to confuse with "intent", and assume that the Laws mean this version. "done consciously and intentionally." The second two are what the LotG seem to be trying to use a bit of a combination of: "fully considered; not impulsive." "done or acting in a careful and unhurried way." If you look at the definitions that IFAB/FIFA have put forth as relates to deliberate vs deflection for offside purposes, it really leans toward the first of these two definitions. If you look at the considerations for deliberate handling, it's a bit more of a combination of the two. "Not impulsive" and "acting in a careful way" (ie, a "careful" movement)
And, as we have discussed ad nauseam in other contexts, what's "deliberate" will change with the level of play — with very little of what's done by high-level professional players being other than "deliberate."
It apparently will also change when you need to protect "you best guy" after he makes a poor decision. If his lunging leg would have been an arm it would be a PK for deliberate handling, but since he threw out a leg to block a pass it wasn't apparently deliberate (this time).
Great conspiracy theorizing. Allow me to try something different. The referee in the United States who has both the most instruction from FIFA on offside and the most training with VAR took several seconds to look at a video replay (let's stress this: not make a one-off call, but to actually look at and analyze video) and make Determination A. You--guy at your keyboard in Oregon (?)--have looked at the same video and made Determination B. When the former World Cup Final referee, head of PRO, and perhaps the domestic-level instructor most well-versed in VAR around the world, sides with the referee and Determination A, you believe it's because he wanted to protect the referee in question. Not because, you know, maybe the two experts know this stuff better than you. The VAR thought the on-field call was wrong. Geiger thought the on-field call was wrong. The couple people who work in MLS who I've talked to think the on-field call was wrong. Webb says the on-field call was wrong. Somehow, for you, all that amounts to Geiger being wrong and there being a conspiracy to protect him? Okay.
It is crystal clear in every piece of guidance out there that a play on defense does not use the same criteria as deliberate for handling.
Is the distinction just about the motion the player makes. If it's more of a stabbing motion is it a reaction, vs a kicking/swinging motion where it's deliberate?
https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...ct-vs-philadelphia-union/details/video/153181 The announcer is correct about one thing, the league should be embarrassed...that he is associated with one of their teams.
Agree that the announcer is absolutely embarrassing. That might be the worst commentary I've ever heard in regards to refereeing on an MLS game. In regards to the play, I just don't understand why you need VAR to get that play right? What on Earth was Stott thinking there and how did he come to a conclusion to produce a yellow there? It's text book DOGSO. I saw he was kind of pointing to the ball and, I'm assuming, saying that the touch was too heavy or something to that nature. The touch was heavy because he got fouled. Stott is a great referee and, really, an absolute marvel in the fact that he has lasted this long in a league that has chewed up so many referees over the years. But he has always had this absolute bizarre interpretation when it comes to DOGSO. Consistently he has produced yellows on plays where everyone expects a red for DOGSO.
Do you see any foul before he was pulled down? I see a failed clearance by the defender at 0:41 and then the defender pulls the Union player down at 0:42. There's another angle at 0:47-0:49. It doesn't look to me like the defender makes a foul on the attempted clearance, and that the player is fouled only when he's dragged down. By the point that the defender starts to drag down the player, however, the ball does seem pretty far in front of the player (and the goalkeeper relatively close to the ball). II fully acknowledge that my interpretation is wrong (Stott wouldn't have overruled himself shown red if it wasn't obvious), but I need help understanding what you see.
So the use of VAR on offside just hit again in COL-NY: https://matchcenter.mlssoccer.com/m...ds-vs-new-york-red-bulls/details/video/153461 I’m not sure first of all that this offside call should have been overturned. I’m also not sure if the pass before the one to the goal scorer was to an offside player or not. But assuming everyone was actually onside, how is this a “clear and obvious” error that should have been overturned? This is so borderline I don’t see how the right call isn’t whatever the on-field call was. (TBF, I’m posting this based on viewing this single clip and seeing the uproar in the Rapids fan base. I didn’t watch the game as I’m in Hong Kong this week.)