Reply With QuoteCorrect a few minor differences to what actually happened, could see both ours and cities goals ruled as offside.Originally Posted by Taksin
|
|
|
First Team
I've explained why this doesn't count if you read the above post closely.
What you're doing is arguing for how things should be (according to your preference) but not how they are according to the rules
He doesn't get in the defenders way, nor the keepers. They can both move freely towards the ball. Unless you can see that, you haven't read the rule properly.
Koala tea
Correct a few minor differences to what actually happened, could see both ours and cities goals ruled as offside.
Rowdy Yates
Seriously Taksin. You think you have but you honestly haven’t come close.
Interfering is to in any way inhibit any movement towards the ball. By standing in front of, or jumping next to you are directly doing so of the ball is coming past you first.
Come on now - do you really need this to be explained.?
First Team
the bit Steveo is obsessed with is this
challenging an opponent for the ball
we know he is challenging no one as no-one has the ball or is near it
or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
the key word here is 'when', because attempting to play the ball isn't enough. It has to be when this action impacts
what does it mean to impact an opponent?
answer;
this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball
and
interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball
Steveo wants it to mean interfere with movement generally, but they mean it must impact on the ability to play the ball
Steveo wants it to mean it takes them away from where the ball is going but they mean it impacts on their ability to get to the ball
Rowdy Yates
If you are offside and you attempt to play the ball you interfere with everything. This is not about obstruction which is a foul this is about interfering with other players. Their positioning - their ability to get to the ball. Their ability to defend other players too. Interfering is used to cover a wide range of factors.
That’s why the simple rule is - did Bobby attempt to play the ball…?
We know the answer.
First Team
You obviously haven't read the posts above otherwise you'd know that it isn't simple in the way you have layed out. If you want to discuss further you'll have to back up your preferred view with technical details because this statement is false unless you can show otherwise.
Previously I thought it was a grey area because I believed we were reliant on our perception of Bobby's intent or the definition of an attempt to play the ball, but I realise I was wrong now. It's not a grey area
Koala tea
Do you enjoy having one set of rules for City and another set for LFC ?
The offside city player runs from the edge of the box towards goal, attacking the setpiece.
Much like the onside scorer, whose intention was to score a goal.
The offside player running like the scorer in the same vicinity is either
1) attempting to play
Or
2) being a decoy
And offside either way by your opinion.
Interesting... when it was Bobby
The defense held a line, with a defender so distracted by the offside player he calls for the offside and is prevented (by your claim here when it's lfc) from reacting to onside players - city have trained for the decoy and delivery imo and executed it perfectly within the rules.
Was the defender who was calling for offside distracted in any way by the offside player, and from attending to onside players, by your claim, yes.
That offside lad runs into the passes area and keepers visual field first.
He pulls up at the end and ensures he's not close enough to the good active play and violating the rules.
The keeper had to deal with the offside player and onside players. Naturally a distraction of some sorts. It overloads his mental tasks and decision making.
Remember any play by the defenders to stop the ball prior to this point, very likely does not qualify as a save due to distance from goal, and he can be onside again something the keeper needs to guard against.
However he didn't have a material impact on the good active play as defined by the rules.
You say the city goal was good by the rules.
When I brought up the above earlier, you switched to the obscured vision rule.
Which as writ and applied has to have an impact on an opponents ability to play the ball.
Had the palace left back, done more than a hop after Bobby had already leapt, then he may have had a case for that rule.
But Bobby didn't prevent him from leaping for the ball. He hadn't made an attempt to play the ball.
Bobby fixes the keeper and delays his reaction time, you say, but cities goal is good.
When the offside city player is running first towards goal and much closer to the keeper and scorer than Bobby was, he by your ruling had no interference whatsoever on their ability to position and defend, ergo the goal is good, huhhh
First Team
There comes a point in ones life, where you just have to agree to disagree. Come on lads, go to the transfer thread as it's heating up.
Rowdy Yates
Again the rules that were broken.
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
You need to explain how Bobby does not attempt to play the ball, and also how he has no impact on the opponent. The defender goes with Bobby, the defender even jumps with Bobby, it's a clear attempted header/challenge for the ball OR a block. Bobby is on his left - the ball comes from the left.
NOW.... 'interfering' is the term used it relates to movement as much as anything else. Read the rules if you don't believe me.
It is used in conjunction with the ability to play the ball. So if an offside player is standing/running/jumping to my left and the ball comes from the left he absolutely IS interfering with my ability to move towards the ball and also to play the ball!
This is not grey at all.
I am baffled because you seem to be suggesting that Bobby did not attempt to play the ball? His run jump and attempted header does not qualify as attempting to play the ball? Once again surely it is either an attempt or a block/dummy attempt to occupy the defender from an offside position.
This could theoretically go on forever but see this and see if it makes sense for you.
Second goal (Oxlade) and third goal (Fabinho pen)
One is open to interpretation after multiple views the other isn’t really, at all once viewed back.
Oxlade Goal.
Does Offside Bobby become ACTIVE while offside and thus interfere with the opponent/opponents?
We can can see he does with 2 opponents.
The defender cannot even get a proper jump because Bobby jumps first. He literally gets the jump on an opponent. This happens because Bobby can see what the defender cannot see until too late - because Bobby is on his left and DIRECTLY in his line of vision. Just watch the video. 100% interfering with an opponent.
Also the keeper cannot defend Oxlade OR crucially come off his line to play the ball WITHOUT ignoring Bobby. He HAS to account for Bobby.**This is also interfering - not as clear under the rules but we can see his movement - rooted until ball passes Bobby.
Conclusion: goal is offside within the rules because an offside Bobby is clearly active.
Fabinho Penalty
Does the the Keeper or player foul Jota or is it a collision simulated by the attacker?
Grey area here.
Jota technically runs right and into the keeper BUT does so while trying to shoot and avoid the tackle from his left
Conclusion: Penalty is open to interpretation. For me it’s a pen for others not. The answer here lies in WHO caused the collision. Not so easy to work out.
Video added to help...
How can anyone say Bobby is not materially impacting-affecting-interfering with this play? Ask yourself what happens IF Bobby isn't there. If you believe that there is no material difference... then fair play....I personally cannot unsee what I can see.
Last edited by Steveo; 28th January 2022 at 11:39 AM.
...shows his class...
The rules/laws for obstruction have changed over time.
My particular gripe is over what we see described as "shepherding the ball" where a player shepherds the ball over the goal line or bye line while preventing opponent(s) access to the ball. The shepherd in my opinion is obstructing the opponent from accessing the ball. Now totally legal and acceptable.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks