My interpretation of this (and other higher level referees in our state) is that Serious Foul Play can only be sanctioned when the ball is in play and when its a legitimate play on the ball. So because the offside occurs before the foul - it simply can't be SFP because the ball is no longer in play.

Its not that Serious Foul Play can't be sanctioned on this play or any play where an offside occurs - its that it is upgraded and punished as Violent Conduct. I don't think we need a change in the laws of the game to accommodate for this - its what higher level referees are taught to do in this situation.

The Premier League just doesn't have the stones.....and goalkeepers generally get away with murder....

It's a clear challenge on the ball. Had he taken out VVD well after a whistle had blown (regardless of offense) then you can have that discussion because then it's no longer a challenge on the ball, but in this scenario you can't just flip it to VC because an offside offense took place prior.

You CAN send off for SFP immediately after a whistle for a challenge on the ball. This happened with Richarlison, because he technically made the challenge after the whistle was blown for the foul with Mane. I don't remember the year this was changed, but it was done so that challenges that started outside the field of play but resulted in UB or SFP just off the field of play would still result in a sanction.

The issue is that offside has a line item exception for fouls that occur after the offense and doesn't indicate anything about sanctioning for said foul.

edit: BTW, none of this excuses PGMOL. They continue to be shit.

Its not that I would consider it VC.

In order for it to be SFP, all the requirements for a foul must also be met. Because the ball is not in play, it cannot be a foul, therefore it cannot be SFP. It gets upgraded to VC.

That's why they won't retroactively punish it. Because VC comes with a longer suspension.

Both occurred after the whistle had blown for another reason. Is the difference being one was offside and the other one was a foul?

That section of law 11 specifically calls out any offense occurring right after the offside infraction. It really should be changed to allow for serious foul play to be determined while keeping the offside infraction intact.

The flag did not go up nor was the whistle blown prior to the malicious tackle. Oliver saw the offense and could have shown a straight red. After the challenge the ball went out of play and the whistle was blown. He then looked to the line judge who made the offsides call. You’ll note that in the pictures showing the challenge the flag is still down.

That is the strangest part of all of this. They keep saying that Oliver blew the whistle before the challenge but that is simply not true.

It isn't when the whistle is blown, it's the point of the infraction. Offside is the one exception where something like serious foul play isn't punished if it comes after the infraction. The pundits who keep talking about the whistle are missing the point. The law has to be adjusted to account for it.

Specifically, this passage in 11:
an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge

That's why Richarlison gets a red and Pickford doesn't.

Because emphasis has been made for line judges to hold their flags and allow VAR to correct the call or otherwise make sure the play ends before a call impacts an outcome. In this instance during play the dangerous play occurred. Then offsides was called. Oliver apparently let the offsides call negate a foul in the box. But must have missed the serious nature of the offense because he didn’t even reach for his pocket. Oliver never considered a dangerous play and VAR didn’t give him a chance to review it.

And don't get me started on the PL standard for serious foul play. It's almost as bad as La Liga's.

It's 2020 and that move was OK because offsides was called? As I heard one talking head say today, Pickford could have punched VVD in the face and not been called for anything, based on these rules.

That's VC, and VC can occur at any point (even before a match has started or after it has ended).

They should adjust the offside law if only to account for delayed offside calls. Like I said above, it wouldn't be a huge change.

I agree on your proposed change. Seems like a no-brainer. Especially with the new emphasis on not raising the flag for offside right away. Hopefully Sergio Ramos hasn't realized this potential loophole.

Offside whistle has to be immediate (and long) when there's a possible keeper collision. Something we enforce very much at the lower levels.

But I've been waiting for a major injury/event to occur on a delayed offside play.