Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[Steveo]

@Taksin

It isn’t about agreeing with me at all. It’s about the rules and whether they applied them correctly after we see Bobby is offside - Bobby run - Bobby Jump - Bobby try to head the ball - Bobby obscure the defender who also jumps (or is it only me who sees this jump) - Bobby who keeps the keeper stationary in middle of goal - and only able to move towards Ox AFTER the ball as cleared Bobbies head?

That/those are the questions. There are a few. If you want to pretend Bobby doesn’t jump and that none of the other scenarios played out, I would seriously question your ability to see.

[Steveo]

Quote ….4. Is Bobby in an offside position?
Not according to the new rules, as far as I can see.

We do have the bizarre situation now though where you can be in an offside position but not be offside….crazy.

So these rules don’t apply?


1• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or


2• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball


To my eye and those of millions more - Bobby runs and Jumps with the defender shadowing him. If this isn’t an attempt to play the ball then Bobby is simulating AND is still making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of the opponent - in this case BOTH defender and Keeper.

[Steveo]

Do you guys argue with Steveo just becasue it's Steveo (and visa versa!)?

I am simply exposing the double standards of a few folks on here.

One we know is batshit crazy, the other would want to be considered a rational human being while seemingly arguing against what anyone can see for themselves as clear and obvious.

[southernboy]

We scored 2 slightly/maybe dodgy goals. We're constantly reminded by the pundits that these things "even themselves out for over the course of the season"... as if it's scientifically proven.

At the end of the day, I really couldn't give a shit.

[Steveo]

I go further - I am over the moon we got a couple in our favour because we had the worst luck in the league with wrong VAR calls last season and it has been proven.

Regardless of that I am not going to pretend we didn’t get what we did on Sunday just because it’s us.

[teesred]

Quote ….4. Is Bobby in an offside position?
Not according to the new rules, as far as I can see.

We do have the bizarre situation now though where you can be in an offside position but not be offside….crazy.

Absolutely right. Like you said earlier its the rules that are the issue. The offside rule has been manipulated so much now its up there with NFL rulings. Truly ridiculous for something that should be very simple.

[Steveo]

Absolutely right. Like you said earlier its the rules that are the issue. The offside rule has been manipulated so much now its up there with NFL rulings. Truly ridiculous for something that should be very simple.

Whatever the reason for these complex rules, It gives the FA plenty of room to make excuses for inept decisions and obvious mistakes.

Simple rules mean a mistake becomes absolutely clear. They sure as shit don't want any heat.

[CCTV]

It is alarming that some of the very same people who were relentless in their accusations of amateurism and match rigging through the use of FA officials and VAR - have suddenly turned 180 and now believe that the officials are 100% correct - the INSTANT a decision is of benefit to us.

once again here are the rules..

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
Didn't happen

• interfering with an opponent by:
Didn't happen

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
Didn't happen

So Bobby isn't affecting the defenders line of Vision?

• challenging an opponent for the ball or
Didn't happen

So Bobby isn't challenging the defender for the ball but trying out for Striktly?

• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
Didn't happen

So Bobby isn't trying to head it by simulating and this motion has zero effect on the defender?

• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Didn't happen
So Bobby isn't even simulating for the ball and has produced a mirage effect where we all see him jump BUT crucially he does not jump?


Let's hear it for these new telepathic defenders. #Gamechangers


Seems the decision is justified for a few because the officials made it.

Funny dat innit!

There are clear examples of offside players gaining an advantage from being offside and goals standing. You have to ignore actual football rulings to maintain you are correct.

Here's a few clear cases of the rule being superceded.

Kane v Lovren 2017 iirc - Kane offside in behind Lovren, Lovren tries to defend him and Kane is deemed onside as Lovren attempted to play the ball.
Ergo if Bobby went for the ball missed it and the left back passed to him trying to 'play the ball' all lovrenesque (on a bad day ) Bobby's back onside.

Managers employ dummy offside players at set pieces regularly. Because offside players can impact play and be deemed onside by the rules or not having had a material impact. Impact v material impact.

An offside step over leading to an onside player scoring, not offside as offside player didn't touch the ball. Even where the step over does the defender.

An offside player not being deemed active for shots/headers that stood.
Though you can be deemed active when a shot is taken if you materially impact the keeper.

Their keeper had to react to the cross naturally, Bobby offside impedes no-one physically, doesn't play the ball and a cross from Robbo arrives to Ox unmarked at the back post. Ox finishes tidily.
Bobby causes no distraction to the keeper and is likely onside when the shot is taken. The play is robbo to ox.

Bobby by virtue of not playing the ball, hasn't physically stopped anyone from doing what they wanted either or the play from Robbo to Ox. Their defender is focused on getting to Bobby not the flight of the ball.

Did he force a defender to defend against an offside player by virtue of his movement, yes. As said already that has stood since Kane v Lovren in 2017 and is part of setpiece routines.
Didn't block anyone.

You've had the refs association explain the rulings and the rules you've posted, Bobby didn't qualify as the rules are writ and applied.

[huyrob]

So these rules don’t apply?


1• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or


2• making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball


To my eye and those of millions more - Bobby runs and Jumps with the defender shadowing him. If this isn’t an attempt to play the ball then Bobby is simulating AND is still making an obvious action which clearly impacts the ability of the opponent - in this case BOTH defender and Keeper.

Just to be clear as you appear to have misread my post…. The first two lines of my post were a quote from somebody else. I was making the point that somebody can be in an offside position ( Bobby was) but arguably not offside. The rules are ludicrous.

[CCTV]

An example Steveo

You posted.
"preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or"

So Bobby isn't affecting the defenders line of Vision?"

Bobby isn't 'preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision.'

By asking a different question, one that isn't what the rules ask, you can get the answer you want.
Q1 no
Q2 yes

Q1 answer, as per the rules
Q2 answer as you see it