samag Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2352258/Offside-rule-changed-FIFA--confusion-Premier-League.html hope the refs understand it....... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiresias Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Sounds a reasonably sensible move to clear up an ambiguous rule, Daily Mail trying to turn it into a scandal Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 If there's a change which gives Cisse a +0.5m handicap then we're laughing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fugazi Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 Sounds a reasonably sensible move to clear up an ambiguous rule, Daily Mail trying to turn it into a scandal "Chaos" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bimpy474 Posted July 2, 2013 Share Posted July 2, 2013 That's not really changed much. It's still in the ref or lino's opinion thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Don't care if I'm a broken record at this stage but the law is not fit for purpose. No way should that be disallowed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 33 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Don't care if I'm a broken record at this stage but the law is not fit for purpose. No way should that be disallowed. He was offside, objectively, his foot is beyond Pope's so only Thiaw is in front of him. How it took 4 minutes to establish that, and how ITV still haven't, is beyond me. Whether it's an obstruction or not is highly subjective, but there's definitely a strong argument that he stops Thiaw getting to the ball. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Andy said: He was offside, objectively, his foot is beyond Pope's so only Thiaw is in front of him. How it took 4 minutes to establish that, and how ITV still haven't, is beyond me. Whether it's an obstruction or not is highly subjective, but there's definitely a strong argument that he stops Thiaw getting to the ball. It was the correct decision. It's the law I don't believe fit for purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 What’s wrong with the law? In this instance. Just now, Optimistic Nut said: It was the correct decision. It's the law I don't believe fit for purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Optimistic Nut said: It was the correct decision. It's the law I don't believe fit for purpose. Which part of it though? Even if we're going off daylight, there was daylight between his and Pope's feet. Again if we're going off the obstruction it's a tough one. It's soft, but he does interfere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 3 minutes ago, Andy said: He was offside, objectively, his foot is beyond Pope's so only Thiaw is in front of him. How it took 4 minutes to establish that, and how ITV still haven't, is beyond me. Whether it's an obstruction or not is highly subjective, but there's definitely a strong argument that he stops Thiaw getting to the ball. Just to correct you a tad - he was in an offside position objectively. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Checko said: Just to correct you a tad - he was in an offside position objectively. Fair Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stozo Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 I don’t really understand the fuss about it being disallowed. He’s offside and literally pushing Thiaw the opposite direction of the way the ball goes. Don’t think it is controversial that offside players should interfere with defenders. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: What’s wrong with the law? In this instance. I don't think it should be offside just having a part of the body partially behind the defence. Nobody would complain about that being allowed, so why have a rule where it could (and to the letter of the law, should) be ruled out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Icarus Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 43 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Don't care if I'm a broken record at this stage but the law is not fit for purpose. No way should that be disallowed. It should, but quicker, instantaneously even. The technology is there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 8 minutes ago, Andy said: He was offside, objectively, his foot is beyond Pope's so only Thiaw is in front of him. How it took 4 minutes to establish that, and how ITV still haven't, is beyond me. Whether it's an obstruction or not is highly subjective, but there's definitely a strong argument that he stops Thiaw getting to the ball. I thought it was more of a foul than offside. No intention of playing the ball. Seemed like his role was to just be a blocker and try and push Thiaw into Pope. Arsenal do it every week and get away with it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) This is the actual law here: "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 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 *The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used; however, when the ball is thrown by the goalkeeper, the last point of contact should be used." - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside I'm not sure if it is offside based on that, purely because Haaland's fouling Thiaw for the whole passage of play meaning that he's not in position to be able to play the ball. Edited January 13 by Checko Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 45 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: Don't care if I'm a broken record at this stage but the law is not fit for purpose. No way should that be disallowed. Why not? Haaland prevented Thiaw from making an attempt to get the ball, so therefor he is interfering. It has always been that you have to have 2 defenders ahead of you when the ball is played forward. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said: I don't think it should be offside just having a part of the body partially behind the defence. Nobody would complain about that being allowed, so why have a rule where it could (and to the letter of the law, should) be ruled out? The offside itself isn’t particularly close. There’s a gap between him and Pope. Upon review for me it’s a clear infraction. He’s factually offside. And he’s preventing Thiaw making an attempt to block the ball so he’s clearly interfering. No goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
healthyaddiction Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Checko said: This is the actual law here: "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 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 *The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used; however, when the ball is thrown by the goalkeeper, the last point of contact should be used." - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside I'm not sure if it is offside based on that, purely because Haaland's fouling Thiaw for the whole passage of play meaning that he's not in position to be able to play the ball. What about that last point "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"? Haaland is offside and is clearly holding Thiaw which impacts his ability to get across and make the block. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, healthyaddiction said: What about that last point "making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball"? Haaland is offside and is clearly holding Thiaw which impacts his ability to get across and make the block. Yeah that's the issue - from where Thiaw was he had no ability to play the ball IMO. But he was where he was because Haaland had his shirt and was pushing him. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Stifler said: Why not? Haaland prevented Thiaw from making an attempt to get the ball, so therefor he is interfering. It has always been that you have to have 2 defenders ahead of you when the ball is played forward. Not debating that it's the correct decision under the laws as they are. I thought the outcome was spot on under the offside law. It's the offside law I don't agree with. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 5 minutes ago, Checko said: This is the actual law here: "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 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 *The first point of contact of the ‘play’ or ‘touch’ of the ball should be used; however, when the ball is thrown by the goalkeeper, the last point of contact should be used." - https://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside I'm not sure if it is offside based on that, purely because Haaland's fouling Thiaw for the whole passage of play meaning that he's not in position to be able to play the ball. I don’t think it’s a foul. It’s a normal penalty box situation. But it’s offside because he’s interfering with an opponent by preventing him playing the ball. If it was 2 metres further away from the shot. Thiaw couldn’t impact the play and it’s a goal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, The College Dropout said: I don’t think it’s a foul. It’s a normal penalty box situation. But it’s offside because he’s interfering with an opponent by preventing him playing the ball. If it was 2 metres further away from the shot. Thiaw couldn’t impact the play and it’s a goal. Fair enough, though I don't see how Thiaw is prevented from playing the ball, he's just not getting there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Optimistic Nut said: Not debating that it's the correct decision under the laws as they are. I thought the outcome was spot on under the offside law. It's the offside law I don't agree with. I’m not sure what people want from it? The obvious thing people say is the daylight rule, but I think that gives far too much advantage to attackers, and would be far harder for defensive teams to counter and would result in more teams playing a low block. Thankfully it looks like the home nations will knock that rule change back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now