Have gotten exactly zero indication thus far that these offside calls are anything but "correct" internally fwiw.
This is probably called less than it should be. I think the dividing line is somewhere around the R thinks the opponent had a good chance to get the ball and it’s blatant. It’s such an unusual call, I think any ref is going to be extremely reluctant to open the game by making that call. (Caveat, I haven’t seen the particular play.)
Let’s say the play developed this way. 1. Obstruction happens. At that moment, the ball is still on the way to the keeper. 2. The keeper makes no mistake and cranks the ball up the field as was the plan. The attacker isn’t near the play and wouldn’t have been even without the obstruction. 3. However, the obstruction means that IF the keeper had messed up a little, the obstruction saved the keeper from a dangerous situation. IOW, the obstruction happens too early to know for sure if it matters or not. Could the ref let it play out but if the keeper bungles it, come back and whistle the obstruction?
I don’t think any professional referee is going to call obstruction on the possibility the GK might miskick the ball. (I’m sure not in my games.) I think the reason we rarely see this call is there a small Goldilocks window. If the defender is within playing distance of the ball (which is usually considered generously), it’s legal. And if the defender isn’t in playing distance, that means the attacker isn’t either and probably can’t actually get involved, making it a trifling offense. And then when plays happen in that Goldilocks zone, it often gets ignored anyway because it isn’t a top of mind issue for refs.
Dujic looks very on it tonight - fast, hard fought and chippy game but he never looked like he was behind the game; had it very well controlled which did not look to be easy.
also, for whatever it's worth, the referee responses to media inquiries quoted above were very clear and helpful.
I'm so tired of hearing this "well the players didn't expect it, therefore it shouldn't be called" argument with fouls. Especially with offside calls, the ones that players are always crying out immediately for is when an attacker appears to be ahead of the defense when receiving the ball, even if they start yards onside on the actual kick. The ones where a player in offside position, especially if slight, comes back onside and interferes with an opponent but doesn't actually play the ball usually doesn't even get thought about by defenders, and there's nothing to really directly see to cry offside about which is why they don't ask for it. It doesn't mean it didn't occur, and it is a pretty black and white call. The player was offside position, came back onside and got in the path of a defender between the defender and being able to play the ball. If you want to use the "players didn't ask for it" defense with a physical type of foul that occurs on-ball, okay I can get that perspective. But not an offense like this. And on the flip side, if you think that players not asking for this call means it shouldn't be called, then when players throw their arm up and cry about how a player "had" to be offside because he received it 3 yards past the defenders, should we then just call it offside because they asked for it?
the defender doesn’t necessarily know that the player who was contesting with him was in OSP at the time the ball was played . . .
I’ll take this one step further than you do. Referees cheap out by judging fouls based on player reactions instead of calling what they see, and then we wonder why our sport has such a big problem with diving, play-acting, protesting, and dissent…
Dylan Borrero (NE) has been fined and suspended an additional match for "conduct following his receipt of two successive yellow cards" including "failing to leave the field in an orderly manner and using abusive and insulting language in violation of League policies."