Question Number: 33009

Law 12 - Fouls and Misconduct 1/22/2019

RE: Professional

engin of olympia, WA United States asks...

http://tr.beinsports.com/haber/bursaspor-fenerbahce-7

equalizing goal in the end for the white has two situations.

was there a faul prior? replay at 4:50 shows the ball hits white player's left knee and changes direction, after the blue shirt plays the ball he gets airborne anticipating the white players contact from his right leg, however in my opinion white player plants his right leg and tries to avoid the contact or at least reduce the severity... in my opinion this is incidental contact

and is there an offside since the ball passes close by the white player after the header sends it towards the goal... in my opinion he does not interfere goalkeepers vision and he only watches the ball...

After VAR check, this goal stood as called in the field. A lot of discussions around it though. Your input is appreciated as always.
Thank you

Answer provided by Referee Peter Grove

Hi Engin,
For me, while both decisions could be debated, neither meets the standard of an obvious error that has to be reversed after VAR review.

The foul looks a tricky one to call and I would not have been surprised to see it go either way - which means of course that it's not obvious enough to be changed. On the offside, I think the replay shown supports your view that the player in an offside position does not block the goalkeeper's line of sight.

Answer provided by Referee Richard Dawson

Hi Engin,
Well the decision to not award a foul was a good one in my opinion. He played the ball, gained control and the other player left his feet.

The decision to hold or not hold the PIOP guilty or accountable for possibly interfering with the keeper was likely mulled over by the VAR team given it was recycled for a review.

Although there was no doubt he eventually was between the ball and the keeper, there was no way the keeper was going to be able to react to the pace and direction of the shot. So they may have decided to cancel him out. I believe the CR still holds the final decision whether or not the VAR agrees . I would not have been surprised if it was taken back but given how the law reads the PIOP was not really in the keepers' line of sight at the beginning of the shot.
Cheers

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi Engin
The first point to make is that Referee Cuneyt Cakir is one of the top referees in the world and highly respected by FIFA and UEFA. His judgement is considered highly in the referee community.
Obviously in realtime the referee did not see a foul on the challenge for the ball. White plays the ball which then has a coming together of both players which the referee interpreted as no foul. I agree with that as the contact was much the opponents fault due to his follow through with the ball played away by White at that time.
On the offside the player in an offside position is not in the line of flight to the ball nor does he interfere with the goalkeepers ability to play the ball. In fact the goalkeeper just stood there and watched the ball sail past him. So not offside in my opinion.
So for me I would have no real problem with the onfield decisions and obviously the VAR review by the referee confirmed his and his assistants real time decisions. Maybe another referee might interpret the challenge in a different way but that would more likely to happen in real time, if it was not seen as a foul by a referee there would be nothing new in the VAR review to award a free kick for a foul.
In my game at the weekend I had somewhat of a similar incident where the follow through by a defender ended up in contact on the challenging attacker. I gave the foul to the defender yet I would say that if I had an opportunity to review it the attacker probably did little wrong in that he just happened to be close to the defender which one would expect anyway. Sometimes the boot is up by the challenger which makes it careless. It looked like a challenge whereas in fact it probably wasn't. The attacker made that point to me that the defender kicked him and in hindsight I probably would agree with that. If I did not give the foul in real time I doubt I would have given it on review if that was available to me.
If there was one decision that I would have a discussion about with the referee was the one at 2.07. He does not see a foul and I believe that is correct yet he stopped play for an injury in a very promising attacking situation for White. White 4 get booked for protesting that decision. Now I can see why he stopped and it is a blight of the modern game with players feigning serious injury. Yeah there was contact on the player yet not enough in my opinion to stop play. I have no doubt he was thinking about the grief he was going to get by continuing with play and a player down. This needs to be sorted by IFAB such as say for the 4th official to allow the physio on in certain situations such as where play is likely to be at the other end. If play switches back then stop play. It happens in Rugby and it could be done in soccer.