Referees have an infuriating tendency to try and prove themselves right at all cost, whether they be current officials or former ones in the studio spouting waffle in favour of their old colleagues while trying to confuse people with needlessly officious language.

Such has been the case with Brennan Johnson’s disallowed goal against Hull City at the weekend.

The Barry Decision I Agreed With

For what it’s worth, there was uproar about Thierno Barry’s disallowed header against Ipswich, and this writer actually agreed with the decision. Yes, Johnson being in an offside position hasn’t stopped the keeper from saving Barry’s effort – we know that – but the law cannot operate on hypotheticals. Saying “the keeper wouldn’t have saved it” is irrelevant. What happens if 50% of the public think a keeper would have saved a shot and 50% don’t and someone is in his eyeline in an offside position?

That’s a jam we can’t be in, so the rules have to be black and white. It feels harsh, but Johnson is in the goalie’s eyeline in an offside position. Saying the goalie wouldn’t have saved it is potentially opening a whole new can of worms later down the line.

However, as much as this Johnson offside decision wasn’t as angrily received, perhaps it should have been.

Where It Gets Murky

Because the attacker is behind the goalkeeper when Harrison Armstrong’s shot comes in, the one Hull defender on the line is not enough to keep him onside. So far, so simple. However, it gets very murky after this.

Mendy clears off the line and then Ryan Giles swivels and tries to leather the ball clear, with Johnson blocking the ball in. Now, referees both current and former are of the opinion that while Giles deliberately plays the ball, Mendy’s block is counted as a save, so his touch is not a new phase of play, and Johnson is interfering with Giles, so the offside must stand.

The Mendy idea passes. The Giles one doesn’t. The idea is that Johnson, when Giles goes up to clear, is still in an offside position. Fine. And you can’t challenge for a ball in an offside position. Case closed, apparently.

A Block Is Not a Challenge

But Johnson didn’t challenge for the ball, did he? He blocked a ball he never made an attempt to challenge for. Challenging for the ball would have meant trying to get there in front of Giles – which Johnson never attempted. Blocking the subsequent clearance means a new phase of play has started after Johnson DID NOT challenge for the ball. He did not impact Giles’ ability to play it. When a keeper closes a striker down and saves a shot, is that a challenge? When a defender closes a striker down and blocks a shot, is that a challenge? No. They are blocks – not challenges FOR the ball.

The ‘Under Pressure’ Get-Out

This is where the officials and the Premier League have also pathetically offered the idea that Giles was under duress or in a panicked state. But a cursory look at the footage tells you this is not the case. Giles has got his back to Johnson and doesn’t know he is there. Johnson also doesn’t stop Giles from making any type of clearance. Giles could easily clear with his right foot to Everton’s left-hand side, or swivel onto his left and clear to the Blues’ right – which is what he did.

If an attacking player is putting you under pressure, you don’t take the time to get onto your favourite foot and clear it in his direction when you could have just as easily cleared it with your other foot AWAY from the attacker. The very fact that Giles made room to play it with his favoured left foot and tried to clear the ball TOWARDS Johnson clearly means he was under no panic or duress to clear – if he was, he would have made the exact opposite clearance.

Also, is there ever a time in football where you can’t argue someone is under pressure from another player? The game is played at 100mph and it is seldom you get ten seconds to yourself in the centre circle to shoot the breeze before deciding what you’re going to do. The argument is that the passage of play followed a clearance and Giles was under pressure. But every passage of play follows something – a throw-in, a free-kick, a corner, a clearance – nothing contextually stands on its own.

And whether someone is under pressure is A) subjective, so can’t be legally applied, and B) so open-ended given the nature of the sport that you can literally apply it to any instance.

Johnson Should Have His Goal

Johnson is only offside if he impairs Giles’ ability to play the ball or heavily affects his decision making. The fact he made no play to win the ball, and the fact Giles clearly doesn’t know he’s there and actually clears the ball TOWARDS Johnson, means that Johnson is at no point offside before Giles plays the ball, because there is no interference. He hasn’t challenged for the ball or impacted the ability of the Hull defender to try and clear it.

What happens in the split second after Giles touches the ball deliberately, therefore, is a new phase of play – so Johnson, when he touches it, is onside. Offside but irrelevant before Giles clears it, and then onside as soon as the defender puts his foot through it.

So let’s boil it down. If Ryan Giles is panicked and under duress from Brennan Johnson, surely he clears the ball AWAY from the Everton man, rather than taking the time to get onto his favoured foot and smack it TOWARDS him? And we must ask the key question: has Johnson challenged FOR the ball, or merely made an attempt to BLOCK a clearance?

Ignore the hastily arranged, deliberately nebulous word salad the men with the whistle try to condescendingly explain with little conviction or believability to those who actually listen – Brennan Johnson should have his first goal in a blue shirt.