Stifler Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Checko said: Fair enough, though I don't see how Thiaw is prevented from playing the ball, he's just not getting there. It doesn’t matter if he’s getting there or not, the fact is that he’s preventing him from making an attempt. That is what interference refers to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mills and Boon Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 18 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. Listening to ITV was excruciating. How are they paid to commentate on football when they don't know the rules? VAR taking so long to draw the unnecessary lines was a joke mind. You could tell by eye easily, then pass it over to the ref to rule on the interference. Two minutes maximum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 4 minutes ago, Checko said: Fair enough, though I don't see how Thiaw is prevented from playing the ball, he's just not getting there. Because Haaland is holding him? Preventing Thiaw making an attempt. The spirit of the law is that if a non interfering offside player had disappeared - everything would remain the same. That’s not the case here Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 2 minutes ago, Stifler said: It doesn’t matter if he’s getting there or not, the fact is that he’s preventing him from making an attempt. That is what interference refers to. Not sure I agree that's what the rule says tbh. Think it's one of these three, offside if: 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 Looks like the third one is the relevant one to me, but if the defender has no ability to play the ball because he's too far from it, how can an attacker impact his ability to play it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 He's clearly nearer to our goal line than Pope is. Not sure why they were focusing on Thiaw so much when he needed to be further away from our goal line than both of them to be in an onside position. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 7 minutes ago, Stifler said: 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. I agree that would be a bad change. At the end of the day lots of the problems people have with these laws (handball in particular) is that they inevitably have some subjectivity. And we're all super-biased football supporters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Stifler said: 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. The rule was brought in to stop goal-hanging. So strikers didn't stand up in the opposition's half so the ball could be pumped up to them. It wasn't brought in so that we'd be having to see if a player's foot may or not be ahead of play in a marginal bit of play. There was no skill from us to play him offside, he wasn't intentionally trying to be offside. It's just crap, man. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Was he more than 5 cm offside? I highly doubt that tbh, but apparently that's what played Wirtz on the other week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Wallsendmag said: He's clearly nearer to our goal line than Pope is. Not sure why they were focusing on Thiaw so much when he needed to be further away from our goal line than both of them to be in an onside position. Because being in an offside position isn't an offence. It's when you're in an offside position and do one of the naughty things, like stopping someone being able to play the ball, that it becomes an offence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 It's been the rule since 1925 tbf. He was offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Checko said: Because being in an offside position isn't an offence. It's when you're in an offside position and do one of the naughty things, like stopping someone being able to play the ball, that it becomes an offence. He was clearly interfering with play though. Offside was the correct call. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Checko Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Wallsendmag said: He was clearly interfering with play though. Offside was the correct call. Yeah that's the subjective bit. Was he? Even if Haaland wasn't there i don't think Thiaw has a hope of getting to the ball. But perhaps if Haaland wasn't pushing him out of the way the whole time he would have? Who knows. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEMTEX Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 The rule was not created to rule out goals like that, whether the call is technically correct or not. Game is so far gone it could've feasibly left the atmosphere. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 1 minute ago, Checko said: Yeah that's the subjective bit. Was he? Even if Haaland wasn't there i don't think Thiaw has a hope of getting to the ball. But perhaps if Haaland wasn't pushing him out of the way the whole time he would have? Who knows. In the position he's standing in he's very much interfering with play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mills and Boon Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 If Haaland wasn't there I reckon Thiaw chests it down and catches it sweet on the half volley for the equalizer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 6 minutes ago, Wallsendmag said: It's been the rule since 1925 tbf. He was offside. It was, but daylight was always the guideline for referees. I remember the first 10-15 years of the PL coverage on Sky and the widely accepted interpretation on whether they agreed with the call was, "was there daylight?". I think it's a sound basis to roll out the change. Never thought I'd agree with Wenger on anything but I do on this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Generally speaking, they've completely lost the spirit of the offside rule. It was meant to prevent goal hanging and gaining an unfair advantage, not to take minutes pouring over whether someone's limb is marginally offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallsendmag Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Just now, Optimistic Nut said: It was, but daylight was always the guideline for referees. I remember the first 10-15 years of the PL coverage on Sky and the widely accepted interpretation on whether they agreed with the call was, "was there daylight?". I think it's a sound basis to roll out the change. Never thought I'd agree with Wenger on anything but I do on this. It was always daylight because it was done by the linesmans naked eye and the benefit of doubt was supposed to go with the attacking player. VAR came in and they could then give a factual offside decision, which is what they did tonight. By the letter of the law it was offside and the correct decision was made, albeit it took them much longer than it should have to get there! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 1 hour ago, Optimistic Nut said: The rule was brought in to stop goal-hanging. So strikers didn't stand up in the opposition's half so the ball could be pumped up to them. It wasn't brought in so that we'd be having to see if a player's foot may or not be ahead of play in a marginal bit of play. There was no skill from us to play him offside, he wasn't intentionally trying to be offside. It's just crap, man. The line has to be drawn somewhere, after some point it is an offside. Would love to see the conversations if the referees were allowed to subjectively call if someone wasn't offside enough thus the goal would be allowed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pata Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 No idea why it took them so long though, could see instantly Haaland was below Pope and was pretty obvous Haaland was impacting Thiaw's ability to block the flick by Semenyo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 9 hours ago, Kid Icarus said: It should, but quicker, instantaneously even. The technology is there. Problem is, as I understand it, is the balls used in the PL don’t have a chip inside that I would have thought would be essential for SAOT to work and give decisions far quicker. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilcline Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 The biggest problem with offside is all the daft subjectivity that has been brought in through the years. Is he interfering with play? Is he active in this phase? Is he blocking the keeper/a defender. Blah blah blah. Every fucking player is active/interfering with play if the ball is in play! If anyone is in an offside position at all then it should be offside. Offside is a factual point and with the current technology there would (or should) be no debate. It's a fucking simple game being overcomplicated by bollocks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lush Vlad Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 12 hours ago, Optimistic Nut said: It was, but daylight was always the guideline for referees. I remember the first 10-15 years of the PL coverage on Sky and the widely accepted interpretation on whether they agreed with the call was, "was there daylight?". I think it's a sound basis to roll out the change. Never thought I'd agree with Wenger on anything but I do on this. Was it Wenger who mentioned two lines? So you can be offside leaning forward, but you still have say your hips or leg inline with the defender and that would be onside? I quite like that idea. But it would also then just mean potentially even more line drawing and taking even longer with decisions. Although most of them would be pretty easy to call straight away and it wouldn't need to be analysed in such minute detail every week. As I'd imagine ones where your foot is onside by 2mm but the rest of your body is off would be few and far between. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Posted January 14 Share Posted January 14 12 hours ago, Nobody said: Was he more than 5 cm offside? I highly doubt that tbh, but apparently that's what played Wirtz on the other week. To the eye, the two X's below are roughly the points being measured: While it's always hard to tell without lines and with the camera angle taken into account, it still looks pretty cut and dry to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 Bump. 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