Anubis
RefChat Addict
Okay..... only if he is offside. From which point is he offside?
only seen the still...as mentioned,
so only basing call on the still.
i look tmrw
Okay..... only if he is offside. From which point is he offside?
"abundantly clear". How does a still shot from the opposite side of Bowen not show he might have touched the ball before the other attacker?
I am not seeing this clear image of offside everyone else is off this one still.only seen the still...as mentioned,
so only basing call on the still.
i look tmrw
Where is he offside from?! How does this still show he is offside? The last touch before the still from what I can see is off a Leeds player.Again, there is nothing in the Laws that says "touching the ball" is the only thing that constitutes offside in this case. I've copied and pasted the relevant section of Law 11 directly from the FA's website. Please help me understand where you're seeing "not offside unless the ball is touched".
View attachment 5385
The ball appears to come off a Leeds player is what I am trying to suggest.There was a ball played from out of shot from that still when Bowen was clearly offside, they didn't show lines but then they went onto forensically examine his actions in front of the keeper and wouldn't have done that if he wasn't in an offside position.
I'm reading exactly what you are saying. You are saying that unless the player touches the ball, he isn't involved in active play. That's wrong. He is actively interfering with play while being in an offside position. And remember that it's only a DELIBERATE play by a defender that resets offside. A deflection is not a deliberate play. Now if the referee rules a deliberate play by a Leeds player, then offside would reset. But since we don't hear that, we can only speculate.Where is he offside from?! How does this still show he is offside? The last touch before the still from what I can see is off a Leeds player.
Going round in circles, read what I am asking.
Are you not a member of the elite?us plebs tho should never seek to assume mantle of elite.
if nothing else its a stark reminder that what we see on tv is not what we see on council pitch 14
regardless of level....this stinks of offside.
Are you not a member of the elite?
Pretty sure you recently said on another thread that you had a top flight game in front of 16,000.
I am baffled, it is clearly offside. Bowen doesn't touch it, but he tries to and right in front of Meslier, and his presence there has almost certainly stopped the keeper getting it. Take your pick from interfering with play or interfering with an opponent, but it just has to be offside.
if he doesn’t touch the ball, it cannot be interfering with play.*But what you are saying in your responses is that Bowen can only interfere with play by touching the ball is not the correct interpretation of the offside law. Interfering with play or an opponent can be ruled without touching the ball. This is one of those examples.
A bit outdated since seeking to gain an advantage hasn’t been in Law 11 for decades . . . .To paraphrase Bill Shankly: If Bowen is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then what's he doing inches from the ball and the keeper?
if he doesn’t touch the ball, it cannot be interfering with play.*
It can only be interfering with an opponent.
________
* Subject to an exception that doesn’t apply here
Doesn’t that quote belong to Mr Clough?To paraphrase Bill Shankly: If Bowen is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then what's he doing inches from the ball and the keeper?
Clough also said if you want a loaf of bread where do you go?Doesn’t that quote belong to Mr Clough?
Having viewed the highlights (i), I have formed the opinion that an offside offence was not committed for the following reasons: