Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[CCTV]

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.

AGAIN..

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

CC How can we realistically say Bobby is not:

Challenging an opponent for the ball ?
is that not Bobby we see rising like a salmon?

Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent?
opponent = defender in this case who has his line of sight obstructed AND who cannot defend Oxlade and also the keeper who has to hold off on shutting down Ox

Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball?
Does the defender not run wider and have a free header if Bobby is not there?


Would appreciate an explanation as to how any of these rules ( and again they are not MY rules) apply to the goal City scored from a free kick.



EDIT:




But the FA rules say nothing, nada, zip about this scenario. It's a free-kick and the offside player is NOWHERE near the ball and cannot possibly attempt to play the ball. As I have said before. If said player (number 16) was on the right of Cities goal scorer not the left, as he was, and he went for the ball dragging a defender to block as it comes in THEN the rules would have to rule out the goal on that basis and the fact the keeper had to account for him.



I have answered this below seems like the same point




I don't see how he forces the keeper to attend to him when the ball is clearly going towards number 14 as it was towards Bobby. And again no reference from the FA on proximity of the offside player to the eventual goal scorer. Seems to be another personal argument rather than a rule.

Please watch the last section from behind the Southampton's goal. It makes everything super clear.

Already said that neither goal has broken the rules based system.
Both are legitimate goals.

Both are actively offside, make movements towards the ball, impact the opponents defense and ultimately DO NOT have a material impact on the play.

For Bobby you made the case he moves towards the ball trying to play it, doesn't play it, causes the defender to act whilst offside and adds an offside component for the keeper to contend with, which you defined as obstructing the keepers movement.
There's no argument from me about these realities. But they are overruled as the player is deemed to have not had a material impact on play.
Did he have any impact? SURE.

Their lad is offside, runs from the edge of the box towards the 6 yard box as the free kick arrives into that area. That is active movement from an offside position.
He has a defender calling for the offside the defender played for. Did he influence the defender from being offside ? YES.
He's the first runner into the target zone of the cross and the keepers first attention point in that zone.
Other players arrive into that zone and the keeper is attending to offside and onside players at the same time.
If he didn't exist the keeper has less to worry about.

These criteria were important points you made earlier, but are not applicable to city's actively offside player.

Again you ask a different question than the rules and drop off other important qualifiers within the rule.

Here's the rule you are citing: "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision"

Does Bobby clearly obstruct the players view ? No.
Does he stop the player from moving, jumping ? No
Does he touch the ball ? No
Does he stop the player from making a play on the ball ? No.

Their offside lad could be to the keepers left side and still not deemed to have made a material impact on the play.
Proximity to the keeper and shot taker would be factors to consider in these circumstances.
Same way the flight of a ball is part of judging if players make a move towards a ball.

[Steveo]

I was only jesting earlier Steveo. Do carry on old bean, hahaha...

Well to be fair mate - it is going on and on and on… and on.

And…. On

I must admit to finding it interesting though. Interesting to see how people interpret the rules.

[Steveo]

@CC

Dude again you seem to be highlighting rules that Bobby did not break to try and negate the ones he did. Some of these would be clear Fouls.


You ask “Does he stop the player from moving, jumping ? No”

And that would be a clear foul.


You ask “Does he touch the ball ? No”

No and that would mean there was no need to even talk about active and non active. Touching the ball would instantly be offside regardless of anything else.

You ask “Does he stop the player from making a play on the ball ? No.”

Again. This would be a clear foul. Remember this isn’t a rule in itself just part of one rule. Here is the full rule;

* 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

He does get in his line of vision and absolutely DOES challenge for the ball.

All but one of these are clear fouls - nothing to do with the offside rule against active players:

Why can’t we focus on what did and did not happen in both instances?

[redebreck]

Well to be fair mate - it is going on and on and on… and on.

What's that then?
Have I missed something important?

And…. On

I must admit to finding it interesting though. Interesting to see how people interpret the rules.

Don't usually see so many discussion posts when we get shafted?

[redebreck]

Here endeth the lessons.

PLEASE!!!!!!!

[Taksin]

Let's keep going then

I am simply refusing to accept the bonkers notion that Bobby didn't jump for the ball.

No one thinks Bobby didn't jump for the ball, so you are arguing with yourself again. To have a respectable debate, you have to know what your opponent thinks and be fair about it.

However, do you agree that the ball was out of reach and therefore his jump was forlorn and useless? That's what I and others think.

Do you also notice that he pulled out of it and turned around as the ball was passing him by (realising mid jump that it was useless). Do you also see that everyone in the live situation quickly realised it was a good pass to Ox and was not an option for Firmino? That's what I and others think.

that changes the definition of what happened, crucially in terms of the rules

I and others have stated the rules are too complex because they are. I believe that over-complication is nuts but that is the way it is.

So you think the rules are too complex

However, if we look at some of the individual rules, interfering with an opponent, for instance, I say they are pretty clear

but you think the rules are pretty clear

If you are offside and you interfering with the position or action of a defender (running to shoot or header a ball for instance) then you are deemed offside....end of.

this is an incorrect interpretation fo the rules. You are bending them so they fit your desired outcome -winning the argument.

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

to include 'jumping', as Bobby did. This is disputable, as CCTV has been at pains to illustrate with other examples. Given that you could maintain your position with any player in an offside position, something is wrong with your interpretation. But VAR officials decided his jump did no such thing. I think that is a respectable interpretation. (no need to go on about how deluded or blind you are)

Which leaves us with
1• clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

that's three qualifications
clear attempt (I don't see it for the reasons given)
which is close (how close does it need to be? not clear)
When those two conditions are met it then must 'impact on an opponent'. None of us like this rule because it can always be argued being in an offside position impacts on an opponent. But given the first two conditions are not met, it means the rule may not have been broken.

All your plaintive cries about how the goalie and defender are in the wrong position become irrelevant.

Doesn't matter what the ref says It should be deemed as an offside offense.

Your assertion is again dependent on your own mind set and not flexible enough to include the obvious doubts created by this problematic set of rules. Your assertion is therefore arrogant

[CCTV]

And if he did any of those he would have had a material impact on the play from Robbo to Ox.
As it was he made no material impact on the play.
Impact v material impact.

They are not fouls alone, only by virtue of being offside. You can contest a challenge, press a player, even physically obstruct a players at times, touch a ball for the most part so long as you are onside and otherwise within the rules of engagement. These are automatic fouls when you are offside and being offside in and of itself is not a foul.

Bobby springing like a salmon whilst unmarked does not constitue a challenge.
To challenge an opponent you need to be challenging an opponent.
Who did Bobby challenge when jumping for the ball ?

Obstructs v Clearly Obstructs

If Bobby couldn't reach the ball that flew over his head, what actions did he prevent the player stood on the ground behind him from completing ?
The player was attempting to do WHAT but Bobby's alleged clear obstruction of his field of vision made him miss the ball.

What you saw was an offside player being a nuisance.
He jumped for a ball unmarked. Not contesting a challenge on any defender.
The left back who scrambled to close Bobby down, couldn't get close enough to challenge.
Neither did any Jump from Bobby clearly obscure his vision whilst attempting to play the ball.

[CCTV]

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

Players routinely can see and head a ball that comes over other players.
What play did Bobby's alleged clearly obstructing vision prevent ?

Who did he challenge when he leapt like a salmon ?

[jr81]

I'm not sure if ye have discussed or seen the segment on sky sports where they discuss this goal.

Apparent, the VAR deemed Bobby to not be interfering with the play and was therefore inactive.

Bith ex-pros felt he was interfering with the play and the goal should have been ruled out.

The ex-ref suggests that this one is sugjective. But for me, offside shouldn't be subjective. The rules have made it become that though.

https://www.skysports.com/watch/video/sports/football/teams/crystal-palace/12524302/ref-watch-was-roberto-firmino-offside

For the record, I'm with Steveo on this one. I think Bobby should have been ruled offside.

[Taksin]

Bith ex-pros felt he was interfering with the play and the goal should have been ruled out.

.

I think CCTV, 19x and myself all felt he was interfering with the play by some standard. That’s not the issue. It’s almost a cliché for an ex pro to sit there and say that.
‘In my day it was never a pen’
‘Not for me’
‘He is definitely interfering with play’

That’s all irrelevant. What is relevant is what the new rules are. That’s what we are arguing about. Even Steveo says the rules are crazy so he’s getting confused as well.