|
|
|
First Team
That's not saying much as you have no ability to know what is clear to me, not that it doesn't stop you from imagining that you do all the time.Originally Posted by Steveo
It would be possible for you to change your view if the definition of a clear chance was explained to you in a way that contradicted your assumptions. After all, you don't make the rules.
You have changed your view on the other goal over time -
What you're saying here is it is impossible for your view to change because your view is correct and anyone who disagrees with you must be blind. Not only that, I and others are incapable of being objective in the way that you are.
In contrast, what I am saying is it looks legitimate to me and I am not convinced otherwise by your reasoning.
Koala tea
I believe you are again taking part of the rules and ignoring others to make a meaningless point when compared with the rules based adjudication system.Oh - ok Taksin
Shall just have to agree to disagree on what clearly attempting to play the ball looks like.
Still it's good to see you can acknowledge an error and see why it was a penalty foul on Jota, perhaps as you put it, you are becoming more balanced
Koala tea
Doesn't matter whether it's clear to you or Steveo. It is clear from the rules as writ and applied.
Steveos reasoning requires a part focus on a rule and ignorance of other stipulations on specific rules, other rules and how the adjudication system processes reviews incidents.
Hes still arguing that a fat English lass shouldn't be let in to a premises because there's a rule that states no entry for fat Irish lads.
First Team
I agree in principle that what's clear to me, to an ex-pro TV pundit or to Mark Clattenburg is irrelevant (or to 'millions of football fans' who Steveo appears to know quite well).
My claim for that goal is fairly modest. It looks legitimate to me.
I am not certain whether Firmino's efforts may qualify as a clear attempt - for example is it the intention that counts or the likelihood of contact or even the destination of the cross?
I am also not certain whether all three stipulations must be met (attempt, interfering, obstruction of view) or whether one is conditional on the others, for example. If there's no attempt to contest the ball, how could he be interfering with play?
Either way, it looks legitimate but I am happy to leave room for being proved wrong. Being proved wrong is not something that has occurred in conversation with Steveo, not that it stops him from imagining to himself and to everyone else that he has achieved the feat.
First Team
Christ, still going??
First world problems
Why not talk about something actually important like Ukraine situation?
#FSGOUT
we are liverpool football club, not fucking norwich.
First Team
Why watch football at all, Kev? It's grown men kicking a ball around trying to get it into a net
Koala tea
Law 11 Offside - Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
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. For the purposes of determining offside, the upper boundary of the arm is in line with the bottom of the armpit.
A player is not in an offside position if level with the:
second-last opponent or
last two opponents
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 or
•been deliberately saved by any opponent
-------‐‐‐-----------
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).
In situations where:
* a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
*a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence
*an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used
No offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
a goal kick
a throw-in
a corner kick
Offences and sanctions
If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it is in the player’s own half of the field of play.
A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.
An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee’s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned.
If an attacking player remains stationary between the goalposts and inside the goal as the ball enters the goal, a goal must be awarded unless the player commits an offside offence or Law 12 offence in which case play is restarted with an indirect or direct free kick.
Koala tea
The active play being reviewed is from Robbo to Ox.
It is a good pass, the only way for Bobby to be offside is to have become involved in the active play.
The rules stipulate when that occur, those criteria were not met.
Bobby had an immaterial impact on the active play.
First Team
Yes I think you're right it is unequivocal. When it says;
"a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball"
The part in bold is the bit that Steveo and the ex-pro pundits fail to factor in to their cries of 'interference!'
As I said myself, anyone can be said to be interfering, but the rule qualifies it clearly.
The area I was conceding to be grey is actually not as grey as it seems;
"•challenging an opponent for the ball or
•clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"
what 'impact on the opponent' means is made clear by the later passage "and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball"
We can all argue about what impacting a player means but the rule has something specific in mind. It's not enough that the defender was influenced and may have gone the wrong way (because that's what happens in all attacks), the attacking player has to interfere with his actual movement towards the ball.
Steveo is wrong
Rowdy Yates
Oh for sure Taksin, absolutely Taksin
Because:
Bobby jumping to head on the left of a defender for a ball delivered from the left of both players naturally means that he doesn’t “interfere with the movement of the opponent towards the ball”… nor does his run and attempted header interfere with the keepers movement towards the ball.
we Know this from the defenders perspective because Bobby isn’t made of flesh and blood and bone BUT actually made of thin air. And we also know it from the keepers perspective because Bobby is also invisible.
keeeeeeeeeep digging
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks