Jump to content

The Reinvention of the Offside Law


KentVillan

Recommended Posts

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

They said they didnt check. Purely because of Schar's touch. That's what's baffling. 

Not baffling either given the view of the City goal.  Shambles of a rule/interpretation, but whateverz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bobzy said:

Not baffling either given the view of the City goal.  Shambles of a rule/interpretation, but whateverz.

That's the point. Before that game, that's checked because if Watkins is offside (not saying he is) he influences Schar to make that touch. 

They've broken the game. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

Because they check every goal (or they should) 

But this time they chose not to because Schar touched it last (which was never the rule if hes influenced by an offside player)

It's bizarre that a player can be made onside by a defender getting a touch if that's what they are saying.

However, fans of our rivals are up in arms about this decision and yet its TOTALLY moot because he was behind the ball so we haven't benefited from any luck at all here. 

The Wolves forum are up in arms saying how lucky Villa are again! 

Mind you they also reckon Konsa is a poor championship player so....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Yeah I heard them say that as well which is why I had a Google on yahoo and it there it states otherwise 

 

 

Everything is checked... Thats what VAR is, its always watching, that was the whole point of it - and the original scope of it, VAR watches everything and then talks to the pitch ref if they see something, its not the other way round where the pitch ref asks for something to be looked at again 

That's where the PL went wrong as well, the "VAR check" stuff on the big screens makes you think they only review certain things, they don't 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

I hear you @StefanAVFC. The offside Twilight Zone era is upon us. Chaos reigns.

Thanks! I'm not trying to make our goal lucky or offside. I want the law applied correctly and fairly for and against us. 

If they didnt check it because of Schar's touch, that it not a fair implementation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

Yeah I heard them say that as well which is why I had a Google on yahoo and it there it states otherwise 

 

 

There's checking, as in having a look at the replay.

And checking for offside, as in getting the laser lines out. They didn't do the latter because of Schar's touch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sky Sports studio saying they didn't check the goal doesn't actually mean anything. I have heard them say that before, then have seen explanations from VAR regarding decisions Sky said they didn't check. 

He was clearly behind the ball imo, so maybe it wasn't even flagged by the technology. I don't actually know how it works, which is another problem.

In any case, I certainly hope they clarify this situation asap. If Watkins IS offside when that ball is played then he should be called as offside. Otherwise the game is seriously broken.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

That's the point. Before that game, that's checked because if Watkins is offside (not saying he is) he influences Schar to make that touch. 

They've broken the game. 

Absolutely. If Watkins isn't there the ball is left for the keeper to deal with. The offside rule is now screwed up and no defender will have a clue what to do. 

However, for the record, I think Watkins was behind or in line with Targett so it makes no difference anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said:

Thanks! I'm not trying to make our goal lucky or offside. I want the law applied correctly and fairly for and against us. 

If they didnt check it because of Schar's touch, that it not a fair implementation. 

Exactly. And given the lengths the commentators and pundits went to in order to say that Schar’s touch played Watkins onside regardless of his position, I think we can take it that the Premier League and its broadcasters are all now in lockstep over the new interpretation. A brand new, revolutionary interpretation of a long-established law, halfway through a season, totally out of line with other European leagues and without any announcement, discussion, or even change to the written laws. Unprecedented (and insane).

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Sky Sports studio saying they didn't check the goal doesn't actually mean anything. I have heard them say that before, then have seen explanations from VAR regarding decisions Sky said they didn't check. 

He was clearly behind the ball imo, so maybe it wasn't even flagged by the technology. I don't actually know how it works, which is another problem.

In any case, I certainly hope they clarify this situation asap. If Watkins IS offside when that ball is played then he should be called as offside. Otherwise the game is seriously broken.

My biggest problem is that the rules are so ambiguous and enforcement so inconsistent, that 90% of goals are ruined for me wondering that the fat old bloke in the middle is going to do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same thing happened to me in a game. The ball was put through to a player offside, I tried to intercept, could quite reach it and flicked it on to the attacker. Who was apparently onside cause I tried to head the ball. Therefore he was one against one with the goalie. Refs have been reffing like this in Denmark the few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so theoretically, attacker standing in offside position (providing he's not impeding the keeper's view) shot comes in, keeper saves, offside-standing attacker taps it in, that's now OK? because the ball has come off the keeper?

would've been loads easier to hold hands up and say 'we've **** up on this one' wednesday night. now you're going to have defenders deliberately leaving it rather than intercepting it. if the newcastle fella hadn't touched it, they'd have gotten the lines out. madness.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure he was behind the ball. I think if they got the lines out his sleeve or a foot may have been just beyond.

And yeah, they've changed the rule over 3 days. Now all you have to do to get the ball to an offside team mate is play it off someone from the other team. Leave a player 30 yards up the pitch and get a deflection off an opposing player.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, tomav84 said:

so theoretically, attacker standing in offside position (providing he's not impeding the keeper's view) shot comes in, keeper saves, offside-standing attacker taps it in, that's now OK? because the ball has come off the keeper?

would've been loads easier to hold hands up and say 'we've **** up on this one' wednesday night. now you're going to have defenders deliberately leaving it rather than intercepting it. if the newcastle fella hadn't touched it, they'd have gotten the lines out. madness.

No because the rule says doesn't count from a "save" but doesn't actually say if they mean a literal goalkeeper's save or a general sense of any player diving in to clear the ball. Most assume it's referring to the keeper.

But any other player, yes. Seemingly you now can't be offside if it's come off an opposing player in any way, shape or form.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, tomav84 said:

so theoretically, attacker standing in offside position (providing he's not impeding the keeper's view) shot comes in, keeper saves, offside-standing attacker taps it in, that's now OK? because the ball has come off the keeper?

No, deliberate saves are specifically covered in exceptions for "receiving the ball from a defender":

Law 11:

Quote
  • A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent. 

A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

I don’t understand half of the replies in this thread so far...

He wasn’t offside so we haven’t benefitted, yet now Sky and the premier league get to go “look see, this is rule and it’s benefitted Aston Villa too”, it’s more of the cover their arse crap, Sky did not have to emphasise TWICE that Ollie Watkins was played onside by the defenders touch, he was inside because he was behind the ball when it was played! 

Was he though? Honestly don’t know you can be so sure, because from the still he looks off.

Point is, there has been absolutely no consistency. Even if he is onside, they didn’t even check and that’s the issue.

They were so desperate to wriggle out of that shocking decision in our City game, that they’ve re-written the offside rule.

3DF8B70C-56E8-486F-9CA5-5492C729DFC2.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â