General officiating/rules

[villa4europe]

I dont like the rule for Liverpools first goal

I hate the rule for the move where they hit the bar, our entire bqxk stopped running to hold the line to play salah offside, how can he possibly be judged to not be interfering?

[villan95]

3 penalty decisions now in Man Utd's favour in 4 matches

[a-k]

2 hours ago, villa4europe said:

I hate the rule for the move where they hit the bar, our entire bqxk stopped running to hold the line to play salah offside, how can he possibly be judged to not be interfering?

I really don't understand why they can't simply make it "anyone offside = flag up"

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, a-k said:

I really don't understand why they can't simply make it "anyone offside = flag up"

And me

I love the idea that salah, one of the greatest goalscorers in the world being stood anywhere on a football pitch isn't interfering with a defenders decision making

Its one of the standout rules that was made by someone who doesn't play football

[villan95]

1 hour ago, villa4europe said:

And me

I love the idea that salah, one of the greatest goalscorers in the world being stood anywhere on a football pitch isn't interfering with a defenders decision making

Its one of the standout rules that was made by someone who doesn't play football

There was one today where he moved towards the ball too but then left it for a deeper runner. Any movement towards the ball should be a definite offside.

[MellbergsBeard]

It’s getting to a stage where you can understand if owners start pulling funding, you can’t be spending 50. 60 million pounds on players for these amateur decisions.

[villa4europe]

3 minutes ago, villan95 said:

There was one today where he moved towards the ball too but then left it for a deeper runner. Any movement towards the ball should be a definite offside.

That was the one where they hit the bar

We did our bit, we stopped dropping back held the line and played him offside, it's a tactic and it worked... Apart from Nunez didn't stop, he ran past our line and on to the ball and was classed as onside, it was good defending made to look shite because of thr stupid rule

Its bullshit, we defended as per the offside player, he blatantly interfered or influenced play or however it's now worded

[villan95]

Seeing some of these goals where attackers are interfering, I'm coming round to the idea of going back to the old offside rules. Anyone in an offside position = offside.

The officials can't be trusted to make smart subjective decisions so we clearly need to remove subjectivity. Same with handballs.

[Stevo985]

The whole attacker being in an offside position but not affecting the game is an absolute disgrace at the moment. It's like they're trying to determine whether the player is 100% in the eyeline of the keeper (or similar) when in reality the sphere of influence of an attacker is far far wider than that. It's not just about blocking the keeper's view.

If an attacker is anywhere near the keeper it should be offside

[bobzy]

3 hours ago, villan95 said:

Seeing some of these goals where attackers are interfering, I'm coming round to the idea of going back to the old offside rules. Anyone in an offside position = offside.

The officials can't be trusted to make smart subjective decisions so we clearly need to remove subjectivity. Same with handballs.

Would be interesting to see how many goals from corners get ruled out for offside if this was implemented

(Though I do broadly agree)

[fightoffyour]

20 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Would be interesting to see how many goals from corners get ruled out for offside if this was implemented

(Though I do broadly agree)

Not many because 1) there aren't many goal from corners 2) usually at least one defender is standing on the line 3) players will adapt to the rules 4) tough shit

[bobzy]

2 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Not many because 1) there aren't many goal from corners 2) usually at least one defender is standing on the line 3) players will adapt to the rules 4) tough shit

There were 2 goals from corners against us yesterday, and both did not involve defenders on the line.  Both would have been offside as per OP.

 

Of course, point 3 (and 4, I guess?) is true.  Corner takers would swing the cross in then leg it onside.

[Genie]

Tamworth had a goal disallowed for the striker being in an offside position, seems harsh compared to some of the things that go on but if that the rule then fine.

Skip to 2m 32secs

 

 

[The_Steve]

3 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

The whole attacker being in an offside position but not affecting the game is an absolute disgrace at the moment. It's like they're trying to determine whether the player is 100% in the eyeline of the keeper (or similar) when in reality the sphere of influence of an attacker is far far wider than that. It's not just about blocking the keeper's view.

If an attacker is anywhere near the keeper it should be offside

The rule is ridiculous and I remember not too long ago how McGinn got called for it against Arsenal. There’s no consistency. 

[fightoffyour]

Just now, The_Steve said:

The rule is ridiculous and I remember not too long ago how McGinn got called for it against Arsenal. There’s no consistency. 

I think that was a previous season and then the directive or the accepted implementation seemed to change after that the next season when the same happened for Arsenal scoring against us, and of course we were on the losing side of both decisions.

[sharkyvilla]

I don't see why they can't make it simple and just say if you're in line with the goal in an offside position then you're interfering.  May be a bit harsh from time to time but with handball directly before a goal they are stricter so don't see why offside can't be given the same treatment.

[alex7783]

4 hours ago, The_Steve said:

The rule is ridiculous and I remember not too long ago how McGinn got called for it against Arsenal. There’s no consistency. 

There is consistency - the consistency is that it is always used to justify a decision going in favour of one of the big 6 teams, with the occasional decision against a big 6 team but only where the beneficiary is one of the other big 6.

When offside was binary, you are either off or on, then it made manipulation to favour the big teams impossible.

If you watch the Dermot Gallagher video it is sooo obvious that he is trying, at great lengths, to justify the decision to favour Liverpool but his arguments have no validity. 

The corruption is so obvious now that it just can't go on, can it..... 

[OutByEaster?]

Offside should be offside - the way to fix the rule is to simply get rid of the whole interpretative idea of whether a player is active - declare every player as active, all the time, and offside becomes very simple.

 

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Offside should be offside - the way to fix the rule is to simply get rid of the whole interpretative idea of whether a player is active - declare every player as active, all the time, and offside becomes very simple.

 

George Graham football would return. No thanks.

[Zatman]

17 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Offside should be offside - the way to fix the rule is to simply get rid of the whole interpretative idea of whether a player is active - declare every player as active, all the time, and offside becomes very simple.

 

For me anybody within 5 yards of the ball is active. When Nunez hit the bar, the ball was for Salah who was going for the ball until Nunez powered through

Thats offside for me as well