A&H

This could be fun!

Like the Sakho 'offiside' the other week, this is another example of a technically correct decision that everybody will see has litte or no common sense. I change of the rules, methinks.
 
The Referee Store
Nothing to do with living in Stevenage (honest!)

Personally I'd go with the AR here. He has gone to play the ball and stopped... Hence conning the defence... And had thus interfered with play...

Can see it both ways but personally its offside.
 
The Bstard said:
Like the Sakho 'offiside' the other week, this is another example of a technically correct decision that everybody will see has litte or no common sense. I change of the rules, methinks.
Click to expand...

You an add Sunderland-West Ham to that too. John O'Shea mistimes his jump and the ball brushes of the back of his head to a West Ham player. Certainly not a deliberate play of the ball which would put Nolan onside. He's made such a mess of it the ball has actually hit him, not the other way around.

As for the OP goal should stand. Let's call this the 'Cisse amendment'. While at Liverpool Djibril Cisse jumped over the ball to avoid playing it and the goal was given. Henceforward any attempt to avoid playing the ball has been deemed legitimate and not interfering. Hard to take when it's against you, but still correct as things stand.
 
OP was way over the top.
First instance is clearly not offside by current definition.
Second instance not clear at all and if I had to guess it would be onside.
Referee is blameless, AR has flagged too soon (although I'd prob have done the same)
 
Very poor flag by the assistant, he's got nowhere near the ball let alone played it. There are clearly 2 people running who have a chance of getting to the ball. One who is offside and one who isn't. You have to delay the flag in this instance. Perhaps the assistant wanted a rest ?
 
Duncan Francis said:
Very poor flag by the assistant, he's got nowhere near the ball let alone played it. There are clearly 2 people running who have a chance of getting to the ball. One who is offside and one who isn't. You have to delay the flag in this instance. Perhaps the assistant wanted a rest ?
Click to expand...
No where near it?! He's within a yard having run 40 yards to play the ball. I'm sticking my flag up every time for this!!
 
Without wanting to provoke an argument, too many are interpreting the law their way rather than applying the letter of the law.
To be involved in active play you have to touch or play the ball. You may not like it, but that's the way the law is phrased.
So:=
1) The lino should not have flagged
2) The referee was correct to allow the goal (provided the second incident was not offside)
 
I would have given the offside , as the player took the centre half out of the game .

also my linos flag was was up !.....its off .............. so as part of our teamwork we sell the decision and talk about it in the changing room .:cry:
 
The law says touching OR playing the ball. Now if you had to TOUCH it to be offside... Then they wouldn't have added the "or playing" part to the law. To me if someone clearly goes to play the ball and as a result pulls a defender out of the game its offside.

And if my lino flags I'm going with him... Otherwise he's going to have a nasty rest of the game. I can ask questions in the dressing room later. He's my eyes from the sideline.
 
I'm going to regret getting involved with this...

But.

Touching. Exactly what is says. A contact made with the ball, irrespective of intention or otherwise. It can be passive and unintentional. Example - attacker clearly offside near the goal. Ball rebounds from the crossbar and hits him in the face before he can consciously make an effort to score. He's poleaxed, with cuckoos flying around his head. He's given offside for touching the ball.

Alternatively, he know's he offside and tries to avoid a goalbound shot but it deflects off his thigh and over the 'keeper into the net. No goal, offside.

Both are examples of the 'touches the ball' criterion.

Playing the ball is an active, conscious deliberate contact. Offside player heads the ball in from a rebound, or picks up a through ball and shoots, or controls the ball to look up for the next pass.
 
In my training, the guidance was to use PIG
Possession
Interferring
Gaining an advantage
 
Tealeaf said:
I'm going to regret getting involved with this...

But.

Touching. Exactly what is says. A contact made with the ball, irrespective of intention or otherwise. It can be passive and unintentional. Example - attacker clearly offside near the goal. Ball rebounds from the crossbar and hits him in the face before he can consciously make an effort to score. He's poleaxed, with cuckoos flying around his head. He's given offside for touching the ball.

Alternatively, he know's he offside and tries to avoid a goalbound shot but it deflects off his thigh and over the 'keeper into the net. No goal, offside.

Both are examples of the 'touches the ball' criterion.

Playing the ball is an active, conscious deliberate contact. Offside player heads the ball in from a rebound, or picks up a through ball and shoots, or controls the ball to look up for the next pass.
Click to expand...
If we use your definitions then 'touching' the ball is inclusive of 'playing the ball'. In other words it is not possible to play the ball without touching it. All the law had to say was 'touch the ball'. Why does it include 'playing or'?
 
one said:
If we use your definitions then 'touching' the ball is inclusive of 'playing the ball'. In other words it is not possible to play the ball without touching it. All the law had to say was 'touch the ball'. Why does it include 'playing or'?
Click to expand...

I agree, poorly worded.
The sense of the law is clearly the player making physical contact with the ball.
 
Tealeaf said:
You an add Sunderland-West Ham to that too. John O'Shea mistimes his jump and the ball brushes of the back of his head to a West Ham player. Certainly not a deliberate play of the ball which would put Nolan onside. He's made such a mess of it the ball has actually hit him, not the other way around.

As for the OP goal should stand. Let's call this the 'Cisse amendment'. While at Liverpool Djibril Cisse jumped over the ball to avoid playing it and the goal was given. Henceforward any attempt to avoid playing the ball has been deemed legitimate and not interfering. Hard to take when it's against you, but still correct as things stand.
Click to expand...

Not the same at all. Nolan was onside when the free kick was taken, therefore however O Shea "played" the ball has no relevance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top