Amazing scenes in Salonika on Sunday. PAOK (2nd place, 52 points) v AEK (1st, 54 pts) 0-0 in the 90th minute when PAOK scores. AEK players surround referee Giorgios Kominis and his assistant claiming offside while PAOK and the stadium celebrates. Referee eventually rules offside which sets off more wildness. PAOK chairman Ivan Savvidis walks onto the pitch twice, both times surrounded by his bodyguards. On the first occasion he appears to reach back a few times but his bodyguards stop him on each occasion. What seems to be a PAOK or AEK official runs to referee Kominis and (I'm guessing) warns him that Savvidis is carrying a pistol and that he needs to abandon the match. On the second occasion Savvidis enters the pitch he's no longer wearing the overcoat he had on previously and the pistol is clearly visible in its holder. Usually not surprised by the happenings in Greek football. But, every day something crazier seems to happen. Picture of Ivan Savvidis, PAOK owner who entered the field at the end of today's derby against AEK with gun at his side. Don't know what else there is to say. #PAOKAEK pic.twitter.com/De6IbEzeWn— George Tsitsonis (@gtsitsonis) March 11, 2018 AEK's Spanish coach Manolo Jimenez told Cadena SER radio in Spain, "We didn't know if he had a gun, then we saw it. It could be seen that he was moving his hand towards his waist because he had a gun. He threatened the referee right in front of me. According to my interpreter, he told him: 'You're finished as a referee'. 'I'm stunned; I don't understand it. It's the type of thing you expect to see in a Clint Eastwood movie.' Two hours after the match was halted and the stadium had emptied, word spread that referee Kominis had told both teams in the dressing rooms that the goal would stand and they needed to return to the pitch to finish the match. AEK refused and said they will file a complaint with FIFA and UEFA. PAOK's twitter account claims the match ended 1-0 based on the referee's match report. However, the league's website has the score listed as "FT 0-0". PAOK said in a statement: "After what happened today, PAOK chairman Ivan Savvidis is preparing all necessary procedures to protect the team and all his collaborators from the threats and attacks they have been subjected to. There will be relevant announcements on the issue soon." The goal incident and ensuing aftermath happens at 2:14 of the video. All this comes on the heels of February 25 when PAOK hosted Olympiakos (3rd place, 50 points entering Sunday). Olympiakos coach Oscar Garcia was hit in the face with an object thrown from the crowd. The match was abandoned and the Greek federation awarded Olympiakos a 3-0 forfeiture victory. PAOK were also deducted three points and handed a two-match stadium ban which included the AEK fixture. But 24 hours before Sunday's match the Greek FA re-instated the points back to the team and did away with the stadium ban (!)
Entire league suspended: http://www.skysports.com/football/n...s-greek-super-league-clash-while-carrying-gun excerpt: The incident led Greece's sports minister Giorgos Vasileiadis to suspend the Superleague indefinitely, reaching the decision on Monday after a meeting with the country's Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras. Vasileiadis said the league would not restart "if there is not a new, clear framework agreed to by all so we can move forward with conditions and regulations".
So here’s a bizarre added wrinkle. The official in question is Lubos Michel, former UCL Final referee. Michel was a Slovakian FIFA who had a very good chance at refereeing a WC Final (10 or 14) if he didn’t retire early. He is now now the President and CEO of PAOK. The best spin is what you posit above—that he warned the referee and told him to abandon. However, there are news accounts and rumors that Michel allegedly threatened the referee himself and that such a threat is documented in he referee’s report. Will be very interesting to see how this plays out. Michel’s post-referee path has always confused me. He’s been in parliament and has been an executive at two European clubs—one in Ukraine and one in Greece. He hasn’t touched refereeing at all, despite his world class pedigree. Everything might be completely above board and Michel just wanted to go into a different area of the sport; but then again, maybe there are other motives. Either way, there’s a story here that I would like to learn more about. And his role in this incident will likely get extra scrutiny.
The referees post game report indicates that Michel threatened him verbally with the phrase "you are finished."
He also has the backing of SYRIZA, purportedly. Remember, this match happened with fans in the stands only after a disciplinary committee decision at 1am that Sunday morning with respect to the incidents versus Olympiakos in Toumpa (Thessaloniki) two match days earlier. That disciplinary hearing overturned, on appeal, an earlier disciplinary committee decision forfeiting the PAOK v Olympiakos match to Olympiakos, deducting an additional three points from PAOK, banning spectators for two home matches, and assessment of a monetary fine. In other words, AEK went to bed Saturday night thinking they were going to play a match v PAOK +5 in the standings without spectators and woke up Sunday morning to learn they were actually +2 and that the stadium would be packed with PAOK supporters
I read that - some descriptions say it was a physical threat while others describe it as a threat on his job as a referee. Obviously, neither is appropriate but only one is illegal.
This really isn’t the important question here at all. Not even close. But, yes, that goal should have stood. There was no interference with line of sight. There was no challenge for the ball. And the only clear movement by the attacker was to avoid the ball and it didn’t have an impact on the goalkeeper. EDIT to add: the view at 3:19 in the video above is the conclusive angle that shows why this is not offside. It gives the perfect view. With that said, it's worth noting that--in real-time--an offside decision here is not absurd.
If you want to be super generous to Michel, he could have simply meant "the game is finished" based on the argument @unclesox initially made. In other words, "dude, my boss has gone, you're finished with this match now!" But media reports indicate the referee reported Michel, as noted above... so either it was a nefarious threat OR the referee misinterpreted. There is so much going on here. Looking at this as (mostly) outsiders who don't follow the Greek league, don't live in this world, and have to rely on translations in news reports, we may never fully understand what happened. But it's certainly something to keep an eye on. The range of possibilities--from corruption involving the referee all the way to referee assault on the part of a former World Cup referee (and everything in between)--is enormous. Will be very interested to see what happens with the league, the PAOK Chairman, Michel, and the referee.
I've seen the goal about 20 times on replay and it looks to me like the PAOK player attempts to play the ball...and misses. My initial thought was exactly like yours, and then I saw the replay from the crs angle and it looks like the PAOK player tries to play the ball, IMO. Fwiw, Greek referees are almost evenly split on whether this goal should have counted.
Not disputing that. And I'm not trying to defend Michel here--I'm just also not going to throw him under the bus immediately either. The whole thing is sordid. If we take the news reports at face value that the referee report says Michel threatened the referee with "you're finished" and we accept that the referee is acting in good faith and has no reason to cover his ass, exaggerate or falsify a report... yes, Michel was in the wrong and should be in a lot of trouble. All I'm saying is that there could be more here than meets the eye. The media can get things wrong or take them out of context. Barring that, let's remember we're dealing with a referee who worked to disallow a goal after his AR said it was a good goal and only after protests. He then allegedly told the teams two hours later that the goal would stand and that they needed to go back out on the field. My point here is that something is very fishy and that once you get over the fact that a club chairman took to the field with a gun, the referee's behavior also isn't exemplary here. So anything is possible.
No. Look at 3:19 in the video above--they are two full arms-lengths apart by the time the ball arrives.
But trying to play the ball and missing wouldn't negate the goal. He didn't interfere with play if that was the case (for what it's worth, I see what you're seeing--but I just think the left leg looks like it moves toward the ball because of the awkwardness of his landing after jumping to avoid the ball). That's disappointing. If it weren't for the fact that this resulted in a near riot, a gun on the field, the suspension of a league and the possible disgracing of a former UCL referee... this would be an ideal training clip to show developing and aspiring top-level referees.
Not that this is the priority here either, but it seems that the government suspending the league (rightly IMO) would fall under that "government interference" clause FIFA likes to trot out whenever it wants to slap some FA upside the head. It will be interesting to see if, and how, FIFA responds.
I don't think the protests had anything to do with the ref changing his mind. Remember, the ref also pointed to the center circle after the goal. My gut feeling is that after Kominis went to save his ar from the onslaught of AEK protests, the ar gave him additional info that the PAOK player was indeed in an offside position but that he didn't raise the flag bc he wasn't sure if there was active involvement. That's the ONLY thing that could IMO cause the ref to change his mind, and the (cr) took it upon himself to determine the attacker WAS indeed actively involved and thus signaled offside. I highly doubt that seasoned refs at this level would be swayed by 11 AEK players in a 30,000 seat packed Toumpa on a play and in a game that basically takes the title away from PAOK....if anything, the cr would assess his surroundings, the context of the match, point to the center circle, and finish the remaining minute plus four minutes stoppage time.
Right. I know exactly what you're seeing. I personally think it's a weird little movement with his leg due to the awkwardness of the jump. But it might be an attempt to play the ball. My point is that it doesn't matter. In a situation like that, if he misses an attempt to play the ball and that clear action did not impact an opponent, then it's not offside.
As @El Rayo Californiano notes, the fact that the AR ran up the line immediately when the goal scores is a visual signal that he had no relevant information to give to the referee and that he thought the goal was good. In other words, he's running up the line because he is sure the player in an offside position was not offside. Likewise, if the referee was sure of interference and suspected the player was in an OSP, all he had to do was ask on the mic and he would have got his answer. Pointing to the center circle was his signal that he was fine with the goal. In most normal situations, I'd be 100% on the referee's side until evidence showed otherwise. But there's something amiss here. You obviously know this world a thousand times better than I do and I hope you're right, but there's nothing about this story and this video that is good. And it's strange enough for me to reserve judgment and not reflexively back the referee.
I know that. I saw the match. I'm talking after he runs up the line. IMO, the AR wet the bed a little here and ran up the line prematurely. The reason I say that is that the only reason the CR would change his mind in this instance is if the ar gave him additional info that the goal maybe was good...in contravention of his sprint upfield.
Is there a directive anywhere which clarifies what constitutes an attempt to play the ball and what doesn't?