The Reinvention of the Offside Law

[Five Ken McNaughts]

7 minutes ago, Danishlad said:

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.

I believe it is a case of the four factors that need to be satisfied for a play of the ball to be deliberate (rather than any 1 of the 4).

[KenjiOgiwara]

I'm actually not that bothered about the city match. I know people are still raging about what they feel is offside, but I'm more annoyed by

1) VAR and how VAR has been so poorly introduced to this league

2) The arrogance of the referees in this league. I can't remember the name of that fat bellend during the city match. Was it Moss something? Anyway, the look on his face when he starting having a talk with Deano. The complete arrogance. They know they can't be touched and they know they stand accountable to nobody if they do a horrible job. You can't do anything about it, and the FA or whoever is in charge of the refereeing has shown to never give a shit if the refereeing appears to be as bent as calciopoli.

I just do not buy how the teams 'in the money' or with CL football, consistently get the big decisions awarded. Like Manchester United for instance and their penalty against us this season. We all know that would NEVER have been awarded the other way for instance. And that bullshit makes me **** livid. 

Anyway, pardon the digression.

[a-k]

The Sky commentators were going on about how Ollie was onside because Schar touched it, but the PL Productions commentators said Ollie was onside because he was behind Targett. (I know this because I switched streams at about this time). How can it be that two separate commentary teams (which both should have the VAR conversations in their ear) provide two different explanations?

Anyways, the main point is this: even in this thread it is unclear whether Ollie was behind Targett or not. Therefore, one of two things: 1) no conclusive evidence to overturn on-field decision and thus goal stands, or 2) it's that tight that we go with what we've all known forever, that the benefit of the doubt goes with the attacker and he's considered level, thus goal stands. 

Even so, Ollie was in so many acres of space that even if he was off by a kneecap, you can't say he gained any advantage from being in an offside position.

Edited January 24, 2021 by a-k

[sne]

Make everything as hazy and vague as possible so you can always "justify" whatever outcome that is needed for any given situation. Perfect.

[Follyfoot]

So Watkins is possibly offside when the ball comes in but because Schar touches the ball this creates a new passage of play so Watkins can now not be offside so no VAR check?

[sne]

1 minute ago, Follyfoot said:

So Watkins is possibly offside when the ball comes in but because Schar touches the ball this creates a new passage of play so Watkins can now not be offside so no VAR check?

If that is the rule then it's absolutely bonkers. Could have a guy in the opponents box all the time and just make sure that any forward pass touches an opponent when you punt it.

[TheStagMan]

Sclar has nothing to do with it. Targett was further up the field than Ollie when the pass was played, therefore he cannot be offside, regardless of what the defender does.

Nothing to do with the bolloxy decision from the city game.

[darrenm]

1 hour ago, Follyfoot said:

So Watkins is possibly offside when the ball comes in but because Schar touches the ball this creates a new passage of play so Watkins can now not be offside so no VAR check?

Kind of. But it's not about being a new passage of play. That doesn't come into this. It's just about the new use of the final clause in the offside rule to say that if a player receives the ball from an opposing player they can't be offside. Until the City game, everyone assumed it meant if a defender had time and space and was under no pressure then wasn't looking when playing a dumb backpass to the keeper and it got intercepted, it was to stop those goals being called offside. Since Moss applied it incorrectly on Wednesday, the FA, most pundits and the PGMOL are having to double down on it and make it mean that any time it touches a defender, an attacker can't be offside. Which, as plenty of people are now saying, is bonkers.

[darrenm]

51 minutes ago, TheStagMan said:

Sclar has nothing to do with it. Targett was further up the field than Ollie when the pass was played, therefore he cannot be offside, regardless of what the defender does.

Nothing to do with the bolloxy decision from the city game.

This discussion isn't about whether Watkins was standing in a offside position or not. That's irrelevant to this. The VAR didn't even draw the lines which means they applied the 'Moss law' again. This discussion is about whether the Moss law is valid or not.

[Tommo_b]

12 hours ago, Cizzler said:

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.

What?! From the still he looks well onside!

[Tommo_b]

11 hours ago, a m ole said:

he was comfortably on.

You can clearly see from the photo even without the line he was well onside... reading through this thread I’ve felt like I was Shallow Hal seeing something other people weren’t, thank you for clearing up what I thought was glaringly obvious for everyone else though. 

[Follyfoot]

21 minutes ago, darrenm said:

Kind of. But it's not about being a new passage of play. That doesn't come into this. It's just about the new use of the final clause in the offside rule to say that if a player receives the ball from an opposing player they can't be offside. Until the City game, everyone assumed it meant if a defender had time and space and was under no pressure then wasn't looking when playing a dumb backpass to the keeper and it got intercepted, it was to stop those goals being called offside. Since Moss applied it incorrectly on Wednesday, the FA, most pundits and the PGMOL are having to double down on it and make it mean that any time it touches a defender, an attacker can't be offside. Which, as plenty of people are now saying, is bonkers.

Thanks for explaining Darren, I agree it is absolutely mental

[Five Ken McNaughts]

The “analysis” of Watkins’ goal on MOTD is woeful. 

[The_Steve]

5 minutes ago, Five Ken McNaughts said:

The “analysis” of Watkins’ goal on MOTD is woeful. 

They've got their agenda: distract from the awful Man City decisions by casting doubt on all decisions instead.

[Vive_La_Villa]

16 minutes ago, Tommo_b said:

What?! From the still he looks well onside!

I think people who are saying he is off are looking at his position to the defender rather than the ball. I made the same mistake and they also did the same on motd. If that call had gone to VAR (which I think it should have) then the lines would have shown he was on. 

[Davkaus]

Looks just about on to me., but it looks like there are a few inches in that at most, I wouldn't call it "glaring" either way to be honest.

I'm not sure the handdrawn line at an arbitrary angle is the conclusive proof it's being portrayed as either.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Davkaus

[Vive_La_Villa]

2 hours ago, a-k said:

The Sky commentators were going on about how Ollie was onside because Schar touched it, but the PL Productions commentators said Ollie was onside because he was behind Targett. (I know this because I switched streams at about this time). How can it be that two separate commentary teams (which both should have the VAR conversations in their ear) provide two different explanations?

Anyways, the main point is this: even in this thread it is unclear whether Ollie was behind Targett or not. Therefore, one of two things: 1) no conclusive evidence to overturn on-field decision and thus goal stands, or 2) it's that tight that we go with what we've all known forever, that the benefit of the doubt goes with the attacker and he's considered level, thus goal stands. 

Even so, Ollie was in so many acres of space that even if he was off by a kneecap, you can't say he gained any advantage from being in an offside position.

What’s PL productions?

[tonyh29]

3 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

I think people who are saying he is off are looking at his position to the defender rather than the ball. I made the same mistake and they also did the same on motd. If that call had gone to VAR (which I think it should have) then the lines would have shown he was on. 

Every goal goes to var 

[a m ole]

7 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

Looks just about on to me., but it looks like there are a few inches in that at most, I wouldn't call it "glaring" either way to be honest.

I'm not sure the handdrawn line at an arbitrary angle is the conclusive proof it's being portrayed as either.

I drew it. the angle is not arbitrary, I showed the vanishing point lines. 

[blandy]

14 hours ago, fightoffyour said:

Should’ve been offside if he was offside, the touch by the defender doesn’t negate that because Watkins didn’t receive it from him after a deliberate play. Crazy that it happened back to us literally the first goal we scored after the incident. The new rule, if that’s what it is, is bollocks.

No, the opposite is the case. The defender did deliberately play the ball. It isn't go where he wanted it to, but he actively decided to play it. The law says clearly that in those circumstances Watkins cannot be offside. The law is daft, but it is clear.

It's nothing to do with the Mings decision, which (as we've discussed ad infinitim) was (we think) wrong, because the attacker challenged Mings, which is not permitted. The Officials decided the attacker "received" the ball from Mings (which is a nonsense).