The FA are having a laugh...

The FA isn't exactly biased towards us even though it's controlled by Dein.

If they started employing favouritism, we'd be the most hated team in England.

I just think it's a numpty organisation that's good for absolutely fvck all. And of course there's Chelsea. Who knows how much they paid the linesman and the ref?

 

Maybe it only seems that way.

 

I think the FA and most of England doesn't like Arsenal because they are seen as the French. I know it sounds nuts, but we never get a frickin break. If they looked at Essien's elbow to Lauren, he would be fined BIG TIME and suspended.

 

They want him to explain himself after he said that the Referee and assistant referee were "on the same team--Chelsea's team." That's consistent with everything I've seen from the FA where a manager basically accuses the Refs of being biased. The managers only put themselves in a bad spot with the FA if they outright say the refs are biased, not merely imply. Wenger has done that with his quotes, and it was stupid.

Flagging for offsides was the incorrect call, but it was a close call on Van Persie that the assistant misjudged. Refs can make a mistake--that does not mean they play for the other team. Wenger should not have gone there. Statements to that effect make the referee's job that much harder. They are preposterous anyway, unless the match is in Germany.

 

There's no way to know unless the AR comes out and says it. No AR would because it sets expectations that they will, and instead it will be addressed as an internal matter among the Refs and their supervisors.

Now, even if you believe the AR got the call "horribly wrong" you have to have better criticisms of why that was (was he in the wrong position to make such a judgement?) than to accuse him of playing for the other team (if you feel you must speak about the refereeing particulars at all.)

EDIT: I'm going to look at the replays again and try to "steal signs" from the AR. Maybe he signalled to the CR why he popped his flag.

 

The guys doing the ppv broadcast said at halftime that the officials had been asked (I don't know by who) to explain their decision, but "declined the opportunity".

Interestingly, the BBC has a link on today's football front page (near the bottom) to a story dated July 15, 2005 on changes to the offside rule, with a picture of RvP next to the link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/4679881.stm

They explain the changes in "passive offside" -- you're no longer considered involved in play, and therefore offside, until the ball is played to you, which would make Henry definitely not a factor (and also explains a lot of late flags -- the AR's are waiting until the ball is played to the player in the offside position -- this was a quick flag, however). However, the piece goes on to explain that the FA and UEFA decided not to adopt the new interpretation, so it only applies to FIFA competitions. This doesn't really seem to answer your question, as I haven't heard anything that definitively states why the goal was ruled out -- I think the Soccernet match report said that it was because of Henry, but there was no attribution to anyone actually making a ruling. But the failure of the FA to adopt the new interpretation leaves the possibility that an AR could rule that Henry was "gaining an advantage" in that he stood to be in position to get a rebound should Cech have made a save or Van Persie hit the woodwork. Still blows, though.

 

I understand, Yoss. You're always (usually? ) sensible, and I was simply making a general point using your words. No offense intended.

The commentators that I heard did say, iirc, that Van Persie was definitely not offsides (he wasn't) and that they didn't believe Henry was interfering with play. (I didn't see the half-time analysis.)

Of course, what do they know about it? I, from memory, think he was. He was running at the goal, he turned to run the center channel from his offside position when van Persie picked up the pass, he was bearing down on Cech... Henry could have simply jogged back to the center circle while van Persie scored if he knew he wasn't interfering with play, for argument's sake. I want to watch it again.

 

He had his flag up before the player received the ball. When the pass was made, you would have, from the far side of the pitch, though it was heading for Henry. The assistant made the call prematurely. Raising the flag so quick was, you could say, a case of premature gesticulation. Sorry, I'm trying to find humour...

 

Yeah, I had a feeling the linesman thought that pass was to Henry. Given his pace, and the 90 degree angle the linesman had to the pass, its excusable. I'm gutted, mind you, but I can see why he might have thought that.

 

That's not too bad...

 

It is precisely plays like this, why we refs are told to delay the flag until certain of involvement. This is not merely a FIFA/IFAB directive, it's the approach of virtually every FA around the world (unless you're in Nigeria or Turkey, where goodness only knows what you'll see from an AR). It is also plays like this why FIFA, without IFAB's consent, decided in their Q & A that a player had to touch the ball to be called offside, which opinion has since been revised.

The whole offside problem is really simple: Offside is about AREAS of active involvement. At midfield, a long ball launched diagonally fifty yards to a forward is an easy offside call. Usually there's no one even close to that player, and therefore involvement is much easier to judge. The area of active involvement is much greater at midfield because there's more space.

This area of involvement necessarily becomes smaller and smaller as one approaches the goal. IMHO, once the area is inside the penalty or goal area, a player had better well touch the ball to be considered actively involved. It's not only too difficult to tell who is "involved" in a play at that point, it's also a pointless distinction. For instance, on a free kick at the top of the penalty area, you can rest assured there will be twenty people all "actively involved" in the play. Some may be offside. The only player who will possibly change the outcome of the play is the person who puts the ball in the net. Any other call of offside on any player will be met with stiff resistance and hard feelings, and probably should be. One should endeavor not to deny perfectly good and beautiful goals on dodgy calls.

Having said all of this, I have myself screwed up this exact same call when I've flagged the wrong person off. The difference is that I motioned the ref over and told him I fvkced it up, but you'll never see that at Prem level, as of course, FAPL refs are quite infallible, you know, and never make mistakes of such caliber.

*cough*

 

I'm not a ref, but it seems to me that this is exactly why the new interpretation of the rule directs the ARs to wait until the player in an offside position plays the ball before ruling him offside, which is what results in seemingly late flags in competitions using the new interpretation. If he flagged because he thought the pass was to Henry, we wuz robbed.

Edit: Never mind, as Tmaker's post (which wasn't there when I went to compose mine) actually addresses the issue from a position of competence, rendering my uninformed opinions irrelevant.

 

Aw, don't kid yourself. I dunno squat either. Besides, that's the best layman's interpretation I've seen all year, much better than dealing with some of the coaches around Seattle, lemme tell you...

Wenger went a bit overboard on the criticism of the official. On the other hand, not nearly as overboard as Rafa Benitez, when trying to explain how Liverpool could take 20 shots and 17 corner kicks and not score: well, it's because the referees are Mexican and Canadian, of course!

http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,1563,1670412,00.html

The league is becoming the province of tools.

 

Thanks... must be because I just got my F coaching license by e-mail today. I feel so much more knowledgeable now!

 

Sky Sports 1 didn't get the linesman in the frame as it happened or from the replay angle. However, on viewing it again, van Persie was clearly not offside as we all know, and since Henry didn't touch the ball the AR should have ignored him then.

Following the pass, when van Persie shaped to shoot, Henry had the presence of mind to hold his run so that he was behind van Persie relative to the end line, and so not in offside position on the shot (or a pass, should that option have played out). So, in every part of the play, the AR was wrong. It happens.

I tend to think that, hypothetically, if Henry was in front of van Persie on the shot, then an offside call is not that controversial. I see a slippery slope if the goal is allowed to stand in such a scenario simply because the player in offsides position didn't touch the ball.

Envisioning a slightly different circumstance from what happened in the game: What if Henry had ran next to Cech? What if he had obstructed the view of the goalkeeper? What if he had flailed at--but not connected with--a cross-shot that went in untouched? What if he touched the goalkeeper but not the ball? Surely touching the ball is not the only way an attacker interferes with play.

Help me out here, tmaker. You only flag if a player touches the ball? I thought I had a good handle on the offsides rule...

 

Wenger was also making the point that they screwed up plenty of other calls. Such as not red carding Essien. That ref and linesmen team had plenty of errors. Getting done in by two bad ref performances in back to back games should give Wenger some room to complain. Hell the FA even "punished" the Newcastle ref. Add to that the fact that guys like Essien had already got away with red card worthy incidents in plenty of games and I think it is fair to raise the issue of whether all teams are being treated equally.

 

True, he was.