Risso Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 1 minute ago, tom_avfc said: I mean you’re on the same page as the premier league at least. Targett has passed the ball to him which a defender has tried to block and deflected to him. Had he been in an offside position this would have been called offside in every game up to our game against Man City last week. It’s basic common sense. The premier league has found a nice loophole in the wording of the rules to justify a stupid decision against us and now we’re just going to run with the worst rule in football? We’re going to tell strikers that they can now stand a couple of yards offside because the defender will attempt to play the ball as they always been trained to do? Its absolute nonsense and as I said earlier in this thread I wish he’d been miles offside to highlight how ridiculous this “interpretation” is. I get where you're coming from, but the Premier League's mistake was to try to shore up a mistake from a dreadful, incompetent, unfit ref by trying to bend what the rules say to fit the facts. In the City game, Mings controlled the ball. Rodri didn't become onside at that point, because depsite what the pundits say, he only becomes onside if Mings plays the ball to him. If Rodri tries to tackle the player, which he did, then he should have been ruled offside. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 Just now, StefanAVFC said: Sure, taking my understanding out of it. An offside player should never influence what a defender is doing, as it's an advantage. If Watkins is challenging Schar from an offside position (and challenging here means making him attempt to do something with the ball) then it should be offside. I don't know how many times I have to say this, but that isn't what the rules say. I've copied from the actual FA handbook that state when a player is offside. None of those things that the the rules say, apply to Ollie's position tonight, so for once, the decision was absolutely spot on. Whether the rules are correct or fair is another discusion entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_avfc Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 6 minutes ago, Risso said: With all due respect your understanding isn't really relevant though is it? He didn't influence anything until he got the ball by a route that the rules without any equivocation at all say means he is onside. It's perfectly clear. or gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent been deliberately saved by any opponent 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). You’ve also missed the above offside offences from the offside law. Given that Watkins played the ball after it had been deflected off an opponent and you could also argue that Schar trying to prevent the ball going close to the goal counts as a save under the above definition it’s hard to say that it shouldn’t be offside (if he was stood offside when the cross came in which he wasn’t!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezzaleed Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Risso said: With all due respect your understanding isn't really relevant though is it? He didn't influence anything until he got the ball by a route that the rules without any equivocation at all say means he is onside. It's perfectly clear. 19 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said: No. If Watkins is offside from the initial cross, then his influence should rule the goal out. That's how I've always understood the rules. aaaahhhhh stop it stop the nuanced debate about influencing defenders or not. its all bollox. if he's standing offside when a ball is played in he's offside if he plays the ball in anyway. if the ball goes to another player who's onside and he the plays it back across then fine thats a second phase but if a defender tries to clear it or touch it or control and it still goes to the player he's still off side. this nonsense. off side is there for one reason that we all know from school. stop goal hangers standing miles off a tapping in goals. this is madness. if the current writing of the law leads to these sort of nonsense bollox about defenders touching crosses playing people on then we need a reset to the black and white old fashioned if your standing off side at any point the linesnan puts his flag up and that's it. at least its clear cut and doesn't lead to moron refs misinterpreting well meaning laws in ridiculous ways because they've no idea of the context and don't understand the game. ffs Edited January 24, 2021 by tezzaleed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 8 minutes ago, Risso said: I don't know how many times I have to say this, but that isn't what the rules say. I've copied from the actual FA handbook that state when a player is offside. None of those things that the the rules say, apply to Ollie's position tonight, so for once, the decision was absolutely spot on. Whether the rules are correct or fair is another discusion entirely. I'm not saying whether the decision is right or wrong. I want fair and legit decisions regardless of the opposition and I feel that the PL have created a rod for their own backs with the Rodri nonsense on Wednesday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 7 minutes ago, tom_avfc said: or gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent been deliberately saved by any opponent 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). You’ve also missed the above offside offences from the offside law. Given that Watkins played the ball after it had been deflected off an opponent and you could also argue that Schar trying to prevent the ball going close to the goal counts as a save under the above definition it’s hard to say that it shouldn’t be offside (if he was stood offside when the cross came in which he wasn’t!). Let's go through those one by one then: The ball didn't rebond off the goalpost, crossbar or opponent. Schär deliberately tried to play the ball. It wasn't saved by Schär under the definition of "save" as the ball wasn't going into or anywhere near the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 24, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2021 I wonder if the Premier League will appoint Jon Moss to look after the Villa - Wolves game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tezzaleed Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 10 minutes ago, Risso said: Let's go through those one by one then: The ball didn't rebond off the goalpost, crossbar or opponent. Schär deliberately tried to play the ball. It wasn't saved by Schär under the definition of "save" as the ball wasn't going into or anywhere near the goal. of for goodness sake listen to yourself. schar deliberately plays the ball. bollox. that's clearly meant to mean when someone deliberately, whilst in control of the ball, passes or clears the ball. not he slides across and accidentally redirects the ball whilst sliding back at full stretch or he stretches his neck and the ball glances off his eyebrow. its guff. follow the logical conclusion of your argument and defenders can no longer attempt to head a cross away for fear of playing someone on. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 The rules are quite clearly nonsense. As Dion Dublin said on MOTD, if Schär makes no attempt to play the ball and doesn’t touch it then Ollie is offside. Nonsensical as they are though, they were correctly applied tonight, but weren’t by Moss in the week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rightdm00 Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Risso said: The rules are quite clearly nonsense. As Dion Dublin said on MOTD, if Schär makes no attempt to play the ball and doesn’t touch it then Ollie is offside. Nonsensical as they are though, they were correctly applied tonight, but weren’t by Moss in the week. Schar touching the ball has zero to do with Ollie being onside. Ollie is behind the ball when Targett strikes it therefore he is onside. Can't be offside behind the ball or in your own half. A defender's action means f*ck all in situations like that. Interpreting the rule as they did against us versus City would break the game of football. The garbage reasoning was used by the Prem to explain away an obvious screw up by Moss and his linesmen. I can promise you it won't be used again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted January 24, 2021 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2021 It'd be interesting if another manager were to speak out against Moss this season after a poor performance - they've already fined two, if they end up fining a third manager this season, then surely questions would need to be asked? They can't keep wheeling out the stuff from the bottom of the rulebook, pretending it applies and hoping for the best in an effort to protect referees, at some point their actions need to carry accountability - they're professionals, they're paid to do this - in any other profession consistent underperformance would come with consequence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shomin Geki Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 Yeah, one more of these and I think we will have a Designated Problem That Needs Addressing situation in the football community. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlwaysAVFC Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Rightdm00 said: Schar touching the ball has zero to do with Ollie being onside. Ollie is behind the ball when Targett strikes it therefore he is onside. Can't be offside behind the ball or in your own half. A defender's action means f*ck all in situations like that. In terms of last night yes it does. VAR didn't check to see whether he was level or behind. So, it was do with Schar touching the ball. Of course, if he was behind or level it wouldn't be given off side anyway. It was quite tight, did they bother to look at it after the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoony Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 I’m sure it has been covered but Watkins looked offside to me...surprised it wasn’t looked at 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 Simple facts are: The goal for Man City shouldn't have stood because the player didn't receive the ball from Mings. The goal last night for Watkins should have been checked for offside because Watkins doesn't receive the ball off the defender. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Ken McNaughts Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 I found something that appears to really get to the nub of the matter. From proreferees.com. It lays out the two competing viewpoints then, very helpfully, gives a clarification issued by FIFA themselves following a controversial goal in MLS in March 2019 (there have been no relevant changes to Law 11 since then)... Note: “The defender has time and options” In the opinion of FIFA therefore, an attempted interception does not constitute a deliberate play of the ball and cannot play an attacker onside. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted January 24, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2021 9 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said: I found something that appears to really get to the nub of the matter. From proreferees.com. It lays out the two competing viewpoints then, very helpfully, gives a clarification issued by FIFA themselves following a controversial goal in MLS in March 2019 (there have been no relevant changes to Law 11 since then)... Note: “The defender has time and options” In the opinion of FIFA therefore, an attempted interception does not constitute a deliberate play of the ball and cannot play an attacker onside. So I'm reading that that the city goal correctly stood? As mings had time and options? It's still bizarre though. I think it needs revising...had schar left it, then at least the lines would've come out. Just doesn't make any sense to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVTuco Posted January 24, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2021 All we need to take from this is that when a clear off-side is coming, our defensemen must stop playing and under no circumstances touch the ball. Then we're fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danishlad Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 (edited) surely Schar did number one- a defender goes to play the ball a conscious action. Therefore Ollie is onside again cause Schar tried to kick it and did kick it straight to Ollie. Edited January 24, 2021 by Danishlad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Five Ken McNaughts Posted January 24, 2021 Share Posted January 24, 2021 6 minutes ago, tomav84 said: So I'm reading that that the city goal correctly stood? As mings had time and options? It's still bizarre though. I think it needs revising...had schar left it, then at least the lines would've come out. Just doesn't make any sense to me The “time and options” clarification by FIFA relates to whether interceptions count as a deliberate play of the ball (they say fhey don’t). Rodri should have been flagged offside under Law11 because he was: a) “in an offside position at the moment the ball (was) played” and b) “interfering with an opponent” by c) “challenging an opponent for the ball” 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts