Offside

[stevo_st]

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.

Yeah - I agree Paul that the PGMOL have clarified based on how you just explained it through their interpretation of the rule.
Just I don't believe they should because it then becomes subjective and introduced ambiguity - how close would Ollie need to be before he deems to have been challenging for the ball etc.

The response from PGMOL seems to be two steps forward, one step back and a missed opportunity to improve the ability to referee the game at all levels.

[LeeB]

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.

Oh just fuck off, not you pal but these fucking laws.

If the Lino was using his flag, like they’ve been doing for donkeys years, not of this is an issue, he’s either on or off when Targett strikes the ball.

[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). 

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

The slight angles between the box and the white line used by MOTD might be a parallax effect as I suspect they have the ability to draw lines better then someone on an iphone. They just don't understand the very basics of the offside law. 

[ktvillan]

I think Risso has it spot on - merely being in an offside position is not penalisable in itself. In my view, in a case where a player in Targett's position is obviously trying to cross or pass to a player in an offside position  (Watson if he wasn't behind the ball), then it should be called offside as soon as the pass is made, and he defender's interventions become irrelevant.  But the law simply does not say that - whether you agree that it should or not is a different argument.

As it happens the call was correct because Watson was behind the ball amyway -but would have been correct anyway because of Schar's deliberate touch and the shitness of the law.

[Goldenballs]

Was was worse you had all the smug fuckers sitting back in their chairs (Savage) spouting absolute guff, acting like they knew exactly what they talking about.