Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
Totally incorrect. A few fk here and there, on a bad day wil cost you 0.1 of your mark
Miss a key match decision and you are down to 7.9 straight away, regardless of rest of your game
Cup Final..
- Thread starter Sheffields Finest
- Start date
Totally incorrect. A few fk here and there, on a bad day wil cost you 0.1 of your mark
Miss a key match decision and you are down to 7.9 straight away, regardless of rest of your game
Yes but which will make more of a difference. Definitely the key decisions
Totally agreed.
Padfoot
The Persecuted One
Hark at the newbies suddenly becoming experts!
Yes, KMD will cost you, but also your overall performance will cost you.....the observer will pick out KMD, but don't ever think that your marks across the board won't suffer as a result of an overall feeling of a poor performance. There are always things that can be used to drop marks in other areas to justify an overall mark that reflects the observers "gut" feeling about a game.
Anyone that tells you different is either naive or a liar.
And let's not forget Costa's temper tantrum that should have been cautioned for dissent. And perfectly iilustrates why it will never improve at grassroots level, and why the sin bin experiment is an utter waste of time.
Yes, KMD will cost you, but also your overall performance will cost you.....the observer will pick out KMD, but don't ever think that your marks across the board won't suffer as a result of an overall feeling of a poor performance. There are always things that can be used to drop marks in other areas to justify an overall mark that reflects the observers "gut" feeling about a game.
Anyone that tells you different is either naive or a liar.
And let's not forget Costa's temper tantrum that should have been cautioned for dissent. And perfectly iilustrates why it will never improve at grassroots level, and why the sin bin experiment is an utter waste of time.
Can the non-offside crew please explain their thought pattern with regards to the not-offside call.. considering the attacking player (stood in an offside position (no-offence) clearly makes initial movement to play the ball (thus becoming active)!!! I need some popcorn for this!!!
Last edited:
I'm not denying you have more experience than me, but I felt this game could have been very different if Taylor hadn't made the key decisions correctly meaning integrity would have been lost.
Copy of the LOTG (page 77 and 78)
2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
- interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
- interfering with an opponent by:
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
- challenging an opponent for the ball or
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or
- making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
or
- gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
- rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
- been deliberately saved by any opponent
He didn't do any of these, therefore not offside.
- clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
The keeper is clearly impacted, he's active and offside!!!!!
The keeper is clearly impacted, he's active and offside!!!!!
Ciley Myrus
RefChat Addict
I think, in the grand scale of things, my take on the game means nothing, neither does any posters on here tbh, I will however bow to the knowledge of someone who has officiated at a FA Cup final, and indeed, the exact same match, so, when Glenn Turner says Taylor was outstanding and the "offside" goal was correct, then, although these are also my takes on the game, I will side with him
I will happily side with whoever Obi One or whatever his name is, when he can display his FA Cup final medal.
A common used saying amongst the very elite is "you will be remembered for what you give, not what you don't give," rings true
Also, a few fouls on Ozil? You think he is currently too fussed about that right now supping his champers and polishing his medal? Or you rather Taylor gave him a few more fouls but, say, awarded Moses the pen?
He doesn't clearly attempt to play the ball though, watch it again. He moves towards it but NEVER attempts to play the ball.
...'when this action impacts on an opponent'.... lets get the FULL section of Law in Frosty!!
But that bit only applies if he clearly attempts to play the ball, which he doesn't!
"Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent" makes it clear that 'attempting to play the ball' is the bit that activates that part of the law.
So clearly running from an offside position after a live ball isn't impacting on an opponent???... He was 'Playing for the Ball', if he wasn't then why did he run for it!! Then his mate who was onside initially ran past him and he stopped!! he doesn't have to strike it to Play for the ball!!!
The first Arsenal goal is VERY similar to one that was used by FIFA in their 2016-17 LotG presentation. In that one, there's a play where an attacking player is in offside position, runs towards ball, but a player from onside position swoops by and plays the ball. Courtois never changes his path, and as noted elsewhere in this thread, the ultimate shot comes from the same place it would've had the offside player played it. The Chelsea GK is in perfect position in either case.
This is NOT deemed as attempting to play a ball.
Now, if the PIOP tries to kick that ball and thus pulls the GK out of position for the easy goal, then that's an example of clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent.
The case we saw on the field today is one of the examples in the back of the Law book where a PIOP moves towards the ball, but it is ultimately played by a player NOT in offside position.
This is NOT deemed as attempting to play a ball.
Now, if the PIOP tries to kick that ball and thus pulls the GK out of position for the easy goal, then that's an example of clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent.
The case we saw on the field today is one of the examples in the back of the Law book where a PIOP moves towards the ball, but it is ultimately played by a player NOT in offside position.
You can't change the law to suit your view.
"clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent". He does not clearly attempt to play the ball. "Playing for the ball" isn't a thing. He runs towards the ball, he does not attempt to play it. This means that the "impacting on the opponent" part isn't relevant, and he's not offside - he doesn't fulfill any of the offside criteria listed in the LOTG above.
Sorry, yes he doesn't attempt to 'kick the ball', but he certainly 'plays' for it!! A 'play' in football isn't just 'kicks', its movements and actions too!!! How do you know that the keeper wasn't impacted, he didn't know who to challenge and set his angles!!
But as far as the LOTG is concerned, you have to actually play (I.e kick) the ball for that bit to apply.
I actually do understand where you're coming from (I'm not being an arse for the sake of it) but I think as far as law is concerned, this is pretty cut and dry.
Im sorry SF but dont think you're gunna win this one. From the lotg football terms:
Played
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball.
I think an attempt to play must be an attempt to make contact with the ball e.g kick, which doesnt happen.
Played
Action by a player which makes contact with the ball.
I think an attempt to play must be an attempt to make contact with the ball e.g kick, which doesnt happen.
This says no offside "because he did not touch the ball". It's one of those examples they give at the back of the Laws, the wording of the actual Laws nonetheless says that "clearly attempting to play a ball" is enough, touching it isn't decisive.
Question is : can "moving towards the ball with the (apparent) intention of playing it, coming close to the ball, but in the end not playing it" fall under "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent"? There might - at least in some cases - be a grey zone.
Last edited: