The Reinvention of the Offside Law

[StefanAVFC]

9 minutes ago, One For The Road said:

We were robbed last week and given the perfectly correct decision this week. 

We are still owed a shit load of bad decisions in our favour. This wasn't one of them.

I'd rather all decisions be checked and right regardless of who is screwed over to be honest. 

[One For The Road]

Just now, KentVillan said:

This thread isn't about whether the goal should have stood - most of us think it probably should have stood, because Watkins was probably just behind the ball as Targett played it in.

The point is that the VAR cabal and Sky are trying to convince everyone that Schar's touch means Watkins position was irrelevant. Watkins was clearly interfering with play as Schar touched the ball, so they should have checked for offside.

Well this thread is about the Watkins goal so it's pretty relevant that he was onside when the ball was played.

I agree that had the ball been played forwards to Watkins and then he was deemed onside because of the defenders touch then thats bonkers. 

But he was onside all day long.

[Vive_La_Villa]

1 minute ago, KentVillan said:

This thread isn't about whether the goal should have stood - most of us think it probably should have stood, because Watkins was probably just behind the ball as Targett played it in.

The point is that the VAR cabal and Sky are trying to convince everyone that Schar's touch means Watkins position was irrelevant. Watkins was clearly interfering with play as Schar touched the ball, so they should have checked for offside.

It’s bad for the game. The sooner they return the interpretation of the rule back to what everyone understood it to be until a few days ago the better. 

[a m ole]

40 minutes ago, darrenm said:

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.

 

he was comfortably on.

[sharkyvilla]

You never know with Watkins's Inspector Gadget armpits whether he might just be offside, the fact is that even if he was offside the goal would have counted.  The commentators clearly have a link up with VAR to know if they are looking at an incident and they said they weren't because the defender made a deliberate attempt at the ball.  It's **** daft.

[a m ole]

I’d have been fuming if Watkins had actually been offside but the goal was allowed because of this sudden rule interpretation. I’ve been following the thread I previously posted with refs chatting and they seem to be split down the middle about the issue which is crazy to me but there is a good discussion going on.

 https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/mci-vs-av.16114/page-4

Notable for me is one poster mentions a colleague who is a Champions League Assistant Referee who along with other FIFA assistant referees say the Mings one was a clear offence.

[Mister_a]

11 minutes ago, a m ole said:

he was comfortably on.

 Could be a fingernail off

[Cizzler]

12 minutes ago, a m ole said:

he was comfortably on.

Haha sorry, but that line is definitely not parallel to the 18 yard line.

Edit: whatever lines people draw on photos taken from their TV - the point is it was close enough that it should have been checked by VAR. The fact it wasn’t is a scary precedent. 

Edited January 24, 2021 by Cizzler

[KentVillan]

2 minutes ago, a m ole said:

I’d have been fuming if Watkins had actually been offside but the goal was allowed because of this sudden rule interpretation. I’ve been following the thread I previously posted with refs chatting and they seem to be split down the middle about the issue which is crazy to me but there is a good discussion going on.

 https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/mci-vs-av.16114/page-4

Notable for me is one poster mentions a colleague who is a Champions League Assistant Referee who along with other FIFA assistant referees say the Mings one was a clear offence.

Amazing thread, thank you.

Shows how much of a clash there is between refs who understand "the spirit of the law" and refs who obsess over the wording. We all know what is meant, and how it has always been interpreted prior to the Mings / Rodri situation.

12 minutes ago, One For The Road said:

Well this thread is about the Watkins goal so it's pretty relevant that he was onside when the ball was played.

I agree that had the ball been played forwards to Watkins and then he was deemed onside because of the defenders touch then thats bonkers. 

But he was onside all day long.

It isn't though, it's about how VAR justified the City goal and tonight's goal using the same interpretation of the rules. You're going off at a tangent here. I agree with your take on Watkins's goal, but it just isn't the point we're discussing.

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, a m ole said:

I’d have been fuming if Watkins had actually been offside but the goal was allowed because of this sudden rule interpretation. I’ve been following the thread I previously posted with refs chatting and they seem to be split down the middle about the issue which is crazy to me but there is a good discussion going on.

 https://www.refchat.co.uk/threads/mci-vs-av.16114/page-4

Notable for me is one poster mentions a colleague who is a Champions League Assistant Referee who along with other FIFA assistant referees say the Mings one was a clear offence.

The mad thing from that is how many people don't know what a controlled touch is 

Mings comes off his heels on to his toes to lean back and chest the ball, if you think that ball is under control you're either Ronaldinho or never played football

Same with schar tonight, that's not controlled, that's just get something on the ball to prevent the goal, it's not deliberate

[a m ole]

Just now, Cizzler said:

Haha sorry, but that line is definitely not parallel to the 18 yard line

do you not understand perspective?

[VillaChris]

31 minutes ago, One For The Road said:

Dion Dublin, whilst staring at a graphic that showed the ball being played BACK to Watkins, saying he was offside when the ball was played. 

NO! NO! NO! You are not offside if you are behind the f***** ball! 

The rest of it is irrelevant.

It was bizarre wasn't it? The line they drew showed Ollie was comfortably behind the ball so was expecting him to say "you can see he's onside from that."

I can forgive footballers for not knowing the stupid rule we saw on Wednesday but that is basic stuff. If you're behind the ball you can't be offside.

[Cizzler]

2 minutes ago, a m ole said:

do you not understand perspective?

Apologies. The line drawn onto a photo via MS paint is clearly exactly straight, my bad.

[KentVillan]

Anyway, what the referees in the link shared by @a m ole all seem to agree on is that the law as it stands is poorly worded, and allows for one interpretation where the City goal should stand, and another (more in line with mainstream understanding of the laws IMO) where it shouldn't.

So hopefully the rule will be tidied up soon by IFAB. It would help if they would admit that the decision vs City was questionable, though.

Of course that won't stop the Manchester clubs from getting the most favourable interpretation of the rules, because the Premier League is 50% sport and 50% soap opera.

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 minutes ago, VillaChris said:

It was bizarre wasn't it? The line they drew showed Ollie was comfortably behind the ball so was expecting him to say "you can see he's onside from that."

I can forgive footballers for not knowing the stupid rule we saw on Wednesday but that is basic stuff. If you're behind the ball you can't be offside.

They drew the line starting from Targett’s right foot!  I appreciate they had about a minute to talk about it but that pretty shoddy analysis from two ex footballers. 

[a m ole]

4 minutes ago, Cizzler said:

Apologies. The line drawn onto a photo via MS paint is clearly exactly straight, my bad.

no sorry that was a shitty response from me, i think i got annoyed you didn’t like my artwork

for benefit of the doubt for anyone else, i drew the line using the edge of the box and grass lines to create a vanishing point.

[Risso]

Even if he was in an offside position to start with, he wasn't offside when he scored as as the play actually followed the rules to the letter.

The rules say that if a player is an offside position, but isn't interfering with play ie hasn't gained an advantage, then he only actually becomes offside if he blocks the view of the defender/keeper (eg Barkley earlier this season for us) or go to tackle the defender (which should have seen Rodri's goal ruled out).  If the defender plays the ball to the attacker, and the attacker hasn't tackled the defender or otherwise impeded him, then the attacker isn't offside and any goal scored is valid.

[a m ole]

9 minutes ago, KentVillan said:

Anyway, what the referees in the link shared by @a m ole all seem to agree on is that the law as it stands is poorly worded, and allows for one interpretation where the City goal should stand, and another (more in line with mainstream understanding of the laws IMO) where it shouldn't.

So hopefully the rule will be tidied up soon by IFAB. It would help if they would admit that the decision vs City was questionable, though.

Of course that won't stop the Manchester clubs from getting the most favourable interpretation of the rules, because the Premier League is 50% sport and 50% soap opera.

Yeah it appears to be one side in favour of how we understand what is fair, in the spirit of the game, or how they word it “what football expects” versus strict letter of the law ‘tEcHnIcALlY’ referrees.

[StefanAVFC]

4 minutes ago, Risso said:

Even if he was in an offside position to start with, he wasn't offside when he scored as as the play actually followed the rules to the letter.

The rules say that if a player is an offside position, but isn't interfering with play ie hasn't gained an advantage, then he only actually becomes offside if he blocks the view of the defender/keeper (eg Barkley earlier this season for us) or go to tackle the defender (which should have seen Rodri's goal ruled out).  If the defender plays the ball to the attacker, and the attacker hasn't tackled the defender or otherwise impeded him, then the attacker isn't offside and any goal scored is valid.

But Schar doesnt slide if Watkins isnt there so he influences how the play turns out. 

So it would be offside if Watkins if offside. That's my understanding of how offside has always worked. 

[Junxs]

I didn't realise there was a dedicated thread for this.. just posted the following in the post match thread, but deserves to be here:

Quote

Really annoyed by Skys comments regarding Watkins goal, trying to make it out as if we benefitted from the same rule that was our downfall against Man City, so they can say for the rest of time that the 2 decisions cancel themselves out.

No chance! For a start Watkins - even if he was ever so slightly ahead of the defender if you get the stencils out, that's irrelevant as he was behind the ball where Targett crossed it from, so he was not in an offside position at all. Furthermore he did not interfere with the Newcastle defender trying to make a clearance as he had no idea if Watkins was onside or not. What happened to Mings was criminal as a player snuck up from behind him and tackled him from an offside position. Despite what everyone in the media is trying to claim, Mings was never "in control" of the ball. 

What I'm really failing to understand with this so called new found rule, is why is a striker called is offside when a goalkeeper makes a save? S surely thats the same thing as a defender touching the ball when neither is in control of possession. Either both scenarios should be offside or neither. I've seen it countless times when a striker taps the ball in after a keeper has made a save "touching the ball without in control" only for it to be ruled out offside.