Quote from: The Edge on January 27, 2021, 10:00:44 AMQuote from: London Villan on January 27, 2021, 09:48:36 AMWatched 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!"
Quote from: London Villan on January 27, 2021, 09:48:36 AMWatched 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Goldenballs on January 27, 2021, 10:33:47 AMNow 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.
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) andany part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponentThe hands and arms of all players, including the goalkeepers, are not considered.
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!
Quote from: Ad@m on January 27, 2021, 11:36:16 AMIt'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.
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.
Quote from: Goldenballs on January 27, 2021, 01:04:54 PMThat'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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Edge on January 27, 2021, 11:41:36 AMQuote from: Goldenballs on January 27, 2021, 10:33:47 AMNow 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. QuoteA player is in an offside position if:any part of the head, body or feet is in the opponents’ half (excluding the halfway line) andany part of the head, body or feet is nearer to the opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponentThe 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).