Offside

[Ad@m]

It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.

It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!

[The Edge]

Watched a bit of the milan derby last night. Incident in the box, ref waves play on. Inter player kicks the ball out immediately so the ref has chance to check on the screen. Didnt look like there was a italian stockley park involved. Ref reviews decision and changes his mind.

The tech in this instance just helps the on pitch ref, and the team who are aggrieved have to kick the ball out for it to be reviewed. Interesting approach.

That sounds a lot better and less complicated. But our lot won't give up Stockley Park without a fight. I imagine its a fantastic jolly for them.On a match day up to 10 games to oversee. That's at least two people in 10 separate rooms just sitting comfortably watching football with nice food and drink all day provided for free of course and getting paid handsomely.

Warnock et al will love that, booting the ball out every five minutes "thought I saw a foul ref!"

So true lol. Big Sam and Tiny Penis will also be all over that.

[The Edge]

Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him?  Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.

Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.

Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.

[Somniloquism]

Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him?  Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.

Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.

Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.

Literally the first part of the rule and ignored by the FA, the refs, PGMOL and most journalists to insist we have now benefited from it as well.

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.

The picture below is where someone took the totally wrong MOTD drawn line from the Newcastle defender (white one) and added the correct line from the ball instead (blue). 




save instagram pictures chrome extension

[stevo_st]

The use of VAR should be matter of fact, not arbitrary.

And the clarifications given by PGMOL should also be matter of fact - or give clear examples of arbitrary decisions.
Until they do this we will continue to have misinterpretations of the rules by refs, players and so called pundits / tv refs.

[paul_e]

It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.

It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!

The bold bit is wrong, that's not the point at all. The point is if Watkins is onside or not when the pass was played has no impact on what Schar did, Schar went for the ball and fucked up which gave Watkins the chance, that happens even if Watkins was a foot further back or closer when the cross is played.

[Ad@m]

It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.

It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!

The bold bit is wrong, that's not the point at all. The point is if Watkins is onside or not when the pass was played has no impact on what Schar did, Schar went for the ball and fucked up which gave Watkins the chance, that happens even if Watkins was a foot further back or closer when the cross is played.

Of course what Ollie did has an impact on Scharr. If Ollie wasn't there Scharr just lets the cross go and there's no issue. The only reason he desperately dives for it is because he knows Ollie's behind him. That's as clear an example of interfering with play as you can get.

The implication in this new interpretation is that in that scenario if the defender can't get the ball cleanly he should just allow the cross to get to the striker he knows is stood behind him and hope he gets flagged offside.

That can't be right.

[stevo_st]

It's wrong both on that point and on the concept that Scharr would've fucked that up had Ollie not been there.

It's not difficult so I'm struggling to understand why the authorities are tying themselves up in knots so much!

The bold bit is wrong, that's not the point at all. The point is if Watkins is onside or not when the pass was played has no impact on what Schar did, Schar went for the ball and fucked up which gave Watkins the chance, that happens even if Watkins was a foot further back or closer when the cross is played.

Would the defender had left it if Watkins wasn't there?
I doubt he would have - I see it more as a forced mistake, rather than a feck up - and think as a result it should be given offside - if Watkins was offside. If it was a goal against us i would have need annoyed, but not livid like the Man City one

[LeeB]

Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him?  Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.

Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.

Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.

Spot on, and that whole carnival regarding Scharr touching the ball making Watkins onside etc. was just staggeringly wrong. If Watkins was offside when Targett played the pass, that's it, he's offside. The ball was played to him, and he's offside, Scharr could have picked up the ball with both hands or performed a full-duplex on Watkins and it wouldn't matter a toss, the first offence was the offside.

As it was he was behind the ball anyway.

[Goldenballs]

That's was how I saw it.  The only reason their guy had made a last ditch lunge (which he made a bit of a hash of) was because he knew Watkins was there for a tap in. If he was off when the ball was played, then that's the reason he would've been there for the tap in.

I think a suplex is a yellow card offence in the re-written rulebook.

[LeeB]

That's was how I saw it.  The only reason their guy had made a last ditch lunge (which he made a bit of a hash of) was because he knew Watkins was there for a tap in. If he was off when the ball was played, then that's the reason he would've been there for the tap in.

I think a suplex is a yellow card offence in the re-written rulebook.

They'd no doubt have to revise the rules once Cavani does it to the opposition keeper and the goal is given by Jon Moss.

[Percy McCarthy]

That's was how I saw it.  The only reason their guy had made a last ditch lunge (which he made a bit of a hash of) was because he knew Watkins was there for a tap in. If he was off when the ball was played, then that's the reason he would've been there for the tap in.

I think a suplex is a yellow card offence in the re-written rulebook.

They'd no doubt have to revise the rules once Cavani does it to the opposition keeper and the goal is given by Jon Moss.

Hasn’t Moss got money riding on Man City for the title though? He certainly refs like he has.

[paul_e]

Would the defender had left it if Watkins wasn't there?
I doubt he would have - I see it more as a forced mistake, rather than a feck up - and think as a result it should be given offside - if Watkins was offside. If it was a goal against us i would have need annoyed, but not livid like the Man City one

Of course what Ollie did has an impact on Scharr. If Ollie wasn't there Scharr just lets the cross go and there's no issue. The only reason he desperately dives for it is because he knows Ollie's behind him. That's as clear an example of interfering with play as you can get.

The implication in this new interpretation is that in that scenario if the defender can't get the ball cleanly he should just allow the cross to get to the striker he knows is stood behind him and hope he gets flagged offside.

That can't be right.

Both misunderstood so let me be clearer.

Look at the image with the blue line, if Watkins knee is slightly over the line schar would still play the ball in the same way and the ball would still be there for Watkins to head in, therefore whether Watkins was ahead or behind the ball or not had no impact on what Schar did. If Watkins stops on the edge of the box and does nothing (the scenario both of you seem to think I'm suggesting), meaning he's not there to score, then the debate is meaningless.

It's not whether Watkins is there or not, it's whether him being onside or offside has an impact on how the situation plays out and the actions the defender takes. The clarification seems to be that in a circumstance like our one you cannot say with any certainty that it had an impact, Schar would've needed to play the ball either way because he couldn't be sure it was 'safe' to let the ball go through. With the Rodri one there's a clear impact from his positioning because if he'd been onside (or even significantly closer to Mings) then how Mings played the ball would almost certainly have been different. Put the 'offending' player in an offside and see if it changes what the defender is goign to do, if it would then it's offside if it wouldn't then it isn't.

I'm not saying i agree with it, just pointing out how the advice now seems to be.

[Risso]

Spot on, and that whole carnival regarding Scharr touching the ball making Watkins onside etc. was just staggeringly wrong. If Watkins was offside when Targett played the pass, that's it, he's offside. The ball was played to him, and he's offside, Scharr could have picked up the ball with both hands or performed a full-duplex on Watkins and it wouldn't matter a toss, the first offence was the offside.

As it was he was behind the ball anyway.

I'f I'm understanding what you're trying to say, then it's not right sorry. A player can be in an offside position as often as he likes, but as the rules are written, he's only penalised for it if he gets an advantage. The gaining of an advantage is very specifically described, and what Ollie did isn't one of them. He didn't try to tackle the player, and wasn't in the defender or the goalie's eyeline. The defender played the ball, and it ended up some distance away with Ollie for a header, which the rules, as written, say that he is then no longer offside. A completely different scenaio to the Man City incident, where the simple act of challenging for the ball meant their player should have been penalised.

The rules are rubbish, because if Schär had just let the ball sail past him, it would have been offside (ignoring any ambiguity in Ollie's starting position) if Ollie had then headed it. Any rule which means that a defender is better off not trying to intercept the ball is a load of rubbish. But that IS how it's written, and as a result that's why Schär touching the ball made Ollie onside.

[WassallVillain]

Now they have 'clarified' something which didn't need clarification, IF Watkins was slightly off when Targett crossed, would it have counted cos their guy sliced the ball up in the air trying desperately trying block the cross from reaching him?  Their picking and choosing of rules and subsections is a farce.

Certainly didn't deliberately play the ball to him. In my opinion that should be offside all day long. I appreciate its a moot point aas he wasn't offside.

Surely if Ollie was slightly offside when Targett played the ball he would be off as that offence occured before the defender played it onto him? Which was my original thought but others have pointed out that he was behind the ball and therefore onside. I think.

Literally the first part of the rule and ignored by the FA, the refs, PGMOL and most journalists to insist we have now benefited from it as well.

A player is in an offside position if:
any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) and
any part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent
The hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.

The picture below is where someone took the totally wrong MOTD drawn line from the Newcastle defender (white one) and added the correct line from the ball instead (blue). 

Even more onside if the lines were parallel with the pitch markings