Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[Taksin]

Jumping for a ball that you can’t reach is not a challenge. We can all jump for a ball we can’t reach.

A challenge could involve body contact, as in when a keeper jumps up and the attacker is trying to outjump them but where one or the other will get to the ball

And a challenge could involve a race for a ball that either one might win, as happens everywhere all the time

So we are back to ambiguity. As they can’t reach it, they can’t be said to be challenging. There is no challenge there to be won.

That’s the meaning of the new rule. Because what looked like a challenge did not amount to a challenge, play continues

[CCTV]

What constitutes a challenge for the ball BTW ? Surely when two players compete for a ball on the ground or in the air they are both challenging for the ball.

Keep in mind - just as the defender has a simple clearance if Bobby isn't there - Bobby too can simply angle his run to the right more to make the header far easier if the defender runs to stop the Oxlade threat. This is directly impacting the opponent - make no mistake.


And here is the crux - and we cannot have it both ways.

Either bobby
1.Runs and jumps as a decoy to fool the defender dragging him away from Oxlade - using a direct challenge and block on his opponent
OR
2. He is trying to genuinely win the ball and score with his head - which he so nearly manages - as is obvious from the video.

In both cases, he is OFFSIDE under the rules as he is active and has materially impacted the opposition.

No in-betweens

There is no mention of Completing an action...yet again you are highlighting rules that Bobby did not break all the while ignoring the ones he did.

If you jump unchallenged for a header that is called a free header, as there is no opponent contesting or challenging the play being attempted.

The rule you posted was about challenging an opponent for the ball. Bobby jumped for the ball as no other opponent acted.
It was a free header. Ergo he did not challenge an opponent whilst trying to complete a header. He was the only one who attempted to play the ball.

The goal stood as the play from robbo to ox was not materially impacted upon by Bobby.

1) Did Bobby's run challenge the opponent to deal with him ? Yes, as did the city's lad run challenge his opponents.
Did Bobby or the City lad challenge an opponent for the ball ? No.
Because they did not materially impede an opponent from making a play, which would have stopped the legitimate pass from passer to scorer, or touched the ball, the goal stood.

2) he attempts to play the ball as in he does not touch the ball and as such does not materially impact the active play. The city lad makes a movement towards the ball in a similar fashion. He doesn't complete his movement towards the ball either as he doesn't touch the ball either.
Their movement does not obstruct another actor and the goals stand.

It's not a necessarily either or case, it's neither in this case.
Offside decoy runners are not foul play. That's why you see them all the time in the game and goals standing.

By your own case here, the city lad either ran in from an offside position attacking the ball and was offside, or he ran a dummy run to fool opponents and was offside (this is what happened). You even argued he didn't complete the action either. But he was offside and instigated an active movement.
For me both are offside and active as per the rules.
By your claim Bobby's actively offside, but their goal is good because no rules have been violated.
I say our goal stood as the same rulebook was applied and no rules were violated.

You need to study them rules and point out the rule that was violated. So far, you haven't found one rule broken.

You keep going on about points you have that clearly apply to the offside and active city lad.
Neither offside player was deemed to have had a material impact as defined by the rules.

In the city example the decoy runner causes chaos, city players are able to use this chaos and even the offside player as a marker for where the ball goes.
You can practice in training so that a deeper onside runner can use the decoy to run towards an area before having to know where the ball is arriving to.
When you defend against these situations you have to be aware than an actively offside player can be deemed to have not made a material impact on the play, can be deemed onside moments later for a pass or due to a defender making a play for the ball.

Those are the rules and how they are applied in football today.

Salah can be 5 yards offside on the right, Shaw might have to attend to him paranoid of a quick turnover in play leaving Salah onside. Not wanting to lose the offside player.
Mane can break in behind wanbiss on the left due to Salah pulling Shaw deeper whilst offside.

Bobby can make an offside run where the defense holds a line against him. Salah from an onside position can exploit that line held against Bobby and score a good goal, even squaring it to an onside again Bobby.

Being an offside runner only matters if you actively participate in the play, touching the ball, or obstruct an opponent from an offside position.

[CCTV]

It was a great finish from the Ox, which has been overlooked.

Not by me Ian, the ball is floated over everyone else to his shoulder chest, he takes it down and finishes tidily.

[CCTV]

Yes I agree - and it should probably be the way the rules are set out, but as yet they are not. This is ALL I am debating here

The rules are set out.
An offside player is not foul play.
There are rules as to when an offside player commits a foul as a result of being offside.
If the rules are breeched its offside, if they are not it is onside.

As was mentioned years ago. If you are on the pitch you are affecting play. Hence the old simple rules - offside is offside...while stopping many very good goals that were not affected to much of a degree, were far more clear and simple.

Yes there was a time when rules were different and there was no European football.
Seems a rather dim reply when talking about the rules as they are formulated and enacted today.
Where an offside and active player does not necessarily deem a good play to be a foul play according to the rules.

This is simply not true for anyone who has eyes.

How can you say the defender doesn’t run for the ball with Bobby and jump with Bobby?

Just how?

The defender is preoccupied with Bobby an offside runner, that is not a foul play.
Same way the soton boy playing linesman is preoccupied with an offside runner. Same way both keepers attend to the existence of an offside distraction.

The rule about an offside player clearly obstructing an opponents line of sight requires a clear obstruction preventing a play or attempted play.

Bobby I think its fair to say can only block the line of sight when he jumps for the ball.
When he leaps for the ball, potentially blocking his opponents line of sight, his opponent hasn't made an attempt to block the ball or play it.

Had Bobby contested the header with the defender, he's offside.
Had the defender made an attempt to play the ball but was visually impaired by Bobby's action then by the rules, he's offside.
But he didn't jump in a challenge and he hadn't jumped to play the ball.

How high did Bobby jump to meet the cross and what height had the defender jumped to in anticipation of playing the ball?

When you look at the play the left back is in a hot mess, he's not made an attempt that would see him play the ball.
You can say he's playing the man, whose offside bit being offside in and of itself is not a foul.

[Steveo]

Jumping for a ball that you can’t reach is not a challenge. We can all jump for a ball we can’t reach.

A challenge could involve body contact, as in when a keeper jumps up and the attacker is trying to outjump them but where one or the other will get to the ball

And a challenge could involve a race for a ball that either one might win, as happens everywhere all the time

So we are back to ambiguity. As they can’t reach it, they can’t be said to be challenging. There is no challenge there to be won.

That’s the meaning of the new rule. Because what looked like a challenge did not amount to a challenge, play continues

So Bobby is trying to jump for a ball he cannot reach is he? Why do this? IF he IS indeed doing this then he is blocking the defender no?

Pick one Taksin.

Is he making a challenge for the ball? OR is he simulating?


If "Bobby is trying to jump for a ball he cannot reach" I suppose the defender also knows he cannot reach it does he? This is why he also jumps??? Strange... the keeper too holds his position too long to block Ox because he expects Firmino to connect..

Any attempt to genuinely get to the ball before an opponent is a challenge. As mentioned IF the defender is not there and shadowing Oxlade Bobby can run wider and have an easier header.

1. He runs to jump and because he is shadowed by a CB he has to jump early to get to the ball FIRST. this is the definition of a challenge.

2. He runs and Jumps to force the defender to follow him (in an offside position) and not defend Oxlade..

Both cases cut and dry OFFSIDE


And also to both you and CC the rule is not contravened ONLY by a 'challenge' the rule is contravened by an ACTIVE player being offside.

This is about 'what' makes Bobby active.. The act of going for the ball and forcing an opponent to defend him. You both know this that's why you want to stick now to the word challenge.

[Steveo]

For heaven's sake

Both of you. stop this nonsense.

Read these rules and watch the goal.. then forever either accept you cannot comprehend them OR that the goal was wrongly allowed to stand.

I don't care which. I have far more important shit to deal with.


Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
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

[CCTV]

If Bobby leaps like a salmon in an attempt to head the ball, can another player hop like a bunny whilst making an attempt to play the same ball that flew over Bobby's head?

Bobby makes a play for the ball, the other lad doesn't make a play for the ball.
Bobby jumping for the ball, doesn't stop the defender jumping for the ball.

[Taksin]

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
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

On all counts Firmino can be said to have been innocent.

Strange but true

[CCTV]

For heaven's sake

Both of you. stop this nonsense.

Read these rules and watch the goal.. then forever either accept you cannot comprehend them OR that the goal was wrongly allowed to stand.

I don't care which. I have far more important shit to deal with.


Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
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

And none of those criteria are met in negating the valid onside play from Robbo to Ox.
Bobby didn't have a material impact on the play.

[Steveo]

On all counts Firmino can be said to have been innocent.

Strange but true

Ok mate - if you say so,