Match Thread : Crystal Palace v Liverpool

[vin]

Some go for you, some go against you.

I mean it's always been that way, right?

You argue when it goes against you. You take them when they go for you.

Nothing is perfect.

[CCTV]

Bobby doesn't challenge an opponent for the ball. He attempts to head a ball that no-one else has leapt to contest.
He didn't challenge anyone in jumping for an uncontested attempt to play the ball.

Whilst trying to head a ball he leapt for, this action has no material impact on an opponent.
Did he materially impact the keeper ? No, he did nothing to stop the keeper from moving to Ox.
He didn't prevent an opponent from jumping for the ball.
There was no play being made or an attempt to play the ball that can be said to have been thwarted by Bobby.

Even if I accept he clearly obstructed the defenders field of vision when he jumped for the ball there was no action being taken that the visual field being obstructed prevented.

Bobby sprung like a Salmon, he didn't touch the ball, didn't prevent an opponent from completing an action.
He had no material impact on the play of an opponent.

Their defender had committed to attend to Bobby, their keeper arguably attended to him too.

The city lad runs towards the ball, he didn't physically prevent the keeper intercepting the cross or shot. He didn't prevent a defender from intercepting the pass or marking laporte.
He most certainly distracted the keeper and defense but not in a material manner. He caused chaos without having a material impact upon the play. The keeper is forced to attend to him, a defender is calling for the offside player to be flagged.
But by the rules he didn't have a material impact on the play or opponent.

You've provided the rules, they are clearly defined.

These blue line complaints you have are all valid complaints in general. But the do not meet the criteria of the rules on what constitutes a foul play with respect to offside, no.

Had Bobby touched the ball, sure.
Had he challenged an opponent for the header/ball, sure.
Had their defender being making a play or attempting to make a play on the ball, but their vision was clearly obstructed, sure.
Had he obstructed an opponent sure.

As it was he tried to head a ball, which would have intercepted the ball but it didn't.
No one got closer to intercepting the ball.
No one made a move that he thwarted.
He didnt challenge an opponent for the ball.
He was deemed to have had an immaterial impact on the play which was from robbo to ox. Same way cities goal stood.

If I was going to kick a ball and my visual field is clearly obstructed by an offside player you can objectively see that event occur. That would make the visual obstruction clear in preventing the play.

[CCTV]

In both cases an onside player benefits from the chaos caused by an offside player who did not have a material impact upon the play as defined by the rules.
Impact on play sure, material impact no.

[Steveo]

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.

[Steveo]

In both cases an onside player benefits from the chaos caused by an offside player who did not have a material impact upon the play as defined by the rules.
Impact on play sure, material impact no.

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

[Steveo]

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.

[Steveo]

Bobby doesn't challenge an opponent for the ball. He attempts to head a ball that no-one else has leapt to contest.
He didn't challenge anyone in jumping for an uncontested attempt to play the ball. .

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?

[Steveo]

https://youtu.be/gp7PVWaEUzw

Watch it as many times as you like.

Bobby tires to head the ball and score but is offside

Or

Bobby simulates a jump to block the defender and occupy him.. again he was in an offside position and this action makes him active.

There is no ambiguity here or much to debate. It’s clear and we can see it. The officials/VaR team screwed up as they do time and time again.

Surely we can accept that we too can benefit from wrong calls and move on.

[ianlfc]

Some go for you, some go against you.

I mean it's always been that way, right?

You argue when it goes against you. You take them when they go for you.

Nothing is perfect.

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

[Steveo]

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

Very true. Composed - not nearly as easy as some might think, watches it onto his foot. Very good technique.