Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 79 comments are related to the topic:
maybe all the dinosaures who said yesterdays newcastle goal was rightly dissallowed
maybe all the dinosaures who said yesterdays newcastle goal was rightly dissallowed
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 79
|
By:
Why not just make offside clear cut, if you are offside you are offside, none of this active or not active malarkey
|
|
By:
because it didnt work
|
|
By:
And this does ?
|
|
By:
maybe all the dinosaures who said yesterdays newcastle goal was rightly dissallowed
mexicano donny osmond • January 15, 2014 9:10 PM GMT time was the joke was women didnt understand offside seems its not just women now Well done lads, once you can't admit you have lost the argument resort to playground name calling  donny osmond • January 14, 2014 7:51 AM GMT marcce the rules say it was a goal are you stuck in an 80s time warp The rules say it was a goal? The rules of what game are you referring to? Again, which part of the offside laws state that a player has to play, or even attempt to play the ball? A player shall be penalised offside if the referee considers i. The player was interfering with play ii. The player was interfering with an opponent iii. The player is gaining an advantage by being offside Just because some referees would allowed it to be a goal does not mean they are right. This seems to be the basis of peoples' argument on here  Referees are for the most part spineless individuals, who for example will give fouls outside of the box way more than they would inside of the box. Is there a separate law for fouls inside and outside of the box? No, and just because a lot of referees choose that route as an easy way out does not make it correct application of the laws of the game. |
|
By:
simply repeating things will never make them correct, except of course in your own mind
|
|
By:
I am stating the laws, these are a matter of fact.
Are you saying the laws are incorrect? Or should just be applied when you feel like it? |
|
By:
perhaps you should consult the full laws of the game , with diagrams
all will become clear |
|
By:
maybe he could make a video?
|
|
By:
Lets see these diagrams please
 |
|
By:
the diagrams are part of the laws you are quoting
|
|
By:
OK so what does the diagram of someone being called offside by "gaining an advantage from being offside" look like?
|
|
By:
given up ?
|
|
By:
I have not seen these official diagrams, so am interested to know what you have seen on the matter.
|
|
By:
you are quoting the laws, to do so without having seen them is probably why you are incorrect
|
|
By:
Are you saying my factually correct laws are incorrect?
|
|
By:
i havnt said that
|
|
By:
on the fifa web site here :
.http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290867.html there is a link on the right to a PDF about interpreting the laws. Maybe that will help especially the "definitions" on the second page. |
|
By:
To all the people who keep quoting the actual rules: Please stop wasting your time. There are a number of people on here are never going to understand these rules. They are probably recent converts to football from computer games. They have only ever seen matches where someone is standing in an offside position and they think that the rules allow this. They will not understand that the offside rule didn't change - just the interpretation of it. (Having said that the law did change to allow players who are level to be onside where previously it would have been offside)
I personally believe that the offside rule should be abolished. Too many crucial mistakes are made (not in the Newcastle case). The offside rule was brought in because of goal hangers scoring shedloads of easy goals. This would not happen now. If a striker went up to goal hang, three defenders would go back to mark him. This would get rid of the densely packed midfield and improve the game. |
|
By:
This fella reminds me a lot of Jason Dodd, he would argue the t0ss over nothing for days on end too.
|
|
By:
Thanks Degs:
interfering with an opponent” means 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 So clearly the referee was correct to disallow the goal, because Gouffran was in Hart's line of vision. If Gouffran was standing to the side of the goal he would not have been in sight so would have been a goal. |
|
By:
I think you also need to look at diagram 7
|
|
By:
Yes diagram 7 is what I just said, if Goufrann was standing to the side of the goal then it should have been awarded as a goal.
Did you mean another diagram? |
|
By:
Diagram 6 is more like what happened and is offside. Did you mean that?
|
|
By:
It doesn't mention about standing to the side of the goal, the key is :
"obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" , not just being in it. |
|
By:
Being in the line of vision is obstructing it. What do you mean?
|
|
By:
Ok, I'm sure you're right.
|
|
By:
Well it is not me it is the laws. Even these diagrams say it is offside.
|
|
By:
interfering with an opponent” means 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 So clearly the referee was correct to disallow the goal, because Gouffran was in Hart's line of vision No because even if he was in his the corner of his vision (certainly wasn't in the line of vision, spectrum of vision perhaps) he didn't prevent him from playing the ball or being able to play it Hart was not getting his hands to the ball whether he'd dived to his left or not, it was going way to fast |
|
By:
why the arguments?the refs brotherhood have agreed the ref made a mistake,the premier league have demoted the ref,so what exactly is the argument?
|
|
By:
|
|
By:
not demoted for that decision imo but who really knows ? why cant refs and linos hold a press conference before the managers are made to look like raging animals straight after a game .
The rules need changed to allow technology ,we need all players patched and ball patched so technology can sort offsides, throw-ins and and goals when things are tight ,after all one decision can be the difference between a game ,a league ,a season ...jobs in fact one decision could be the diff between a club going under and staying solvent .And its a million doller industry because they made it so . but maybe most of all we need less foxing ,games pretty rank and will soon be like racing imo ,just their for the books . the bootyful game has changed beyond all recognition ,its barely a working mans sport anymore ,run for and by corporations for shareholders profits .  |
|
By:
I here a lot of calls for the offside rule to be scrapped. I would love to see how that would work in practise. I think it would lead to an avalanche of goals with score lines like 14-10 becoming commonplace. In short it would turn football into a farce. I think they should organise some exhibition matches featuring top Premier League sides that don't have the offside rule, just to see what would happen.
Would anyone actually like it if there were 20+ goals per game? |
|
By:
DonNo1 16 Jan 14 01:16 Joined: 11 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 5,532 | Blogger: DonNo1's blog
No because even if he was in his the corner of his vision (certainly wasn't in the line of vision, spectrum of vision perhaps) he didn't prevent him from playing the ball or being able to play it Hart was not getting his hands to the ball whether he'd dived to his left or not, it was going way to fast So what you are saying then is that the player must be so close to the keeper that the only thing the keeper can see is his big fast arse? That is ridiculous. Clearly by the the laws of the game the word "obstructing" is used meaning hinder, impair etc. If the player impairs the decision making of the goalie in being offside then the player is deemed offside. Whether that be obstructing/impairing the view of the ball, or as in this case impairing Hart's decision to go for the ball or not and taking his eye off the ball for a split second by being in a goal scoring poition What has the fact whether Hart was getting any where near the ball got to do with the price of a packet of biscuits? |
|
By:
fred you've inadvertantly put it in a nutshell with your last question.
if [as most seem to agree] hart was never going to save that, how can the newcastle player be "effecting the play"? |
|
By:
I never said he was not getting anywhere near it, I asked what that had got to do with anything? Where in the law does it say the keeper would have had to get near the ball in mexicano's or anyone elses opinion?
|
|
By:
fred
you've got to give this one up. it seems that for the sake of your argument that you're now prepared to peddle the line that hart would have saved it. i'll say this for the last time. the refs guidlines state that if a player in an offside position is not having an effect on the play the goal must stand. |
|
By:
So in your opinion if Hart would have saved the shot without Gouffran being there, but conceded the same shot with Gouffran acting in the same manner ass he did, then what would your decision be?
|
|
By:
Fred - you seem to be interpreting the rules differently to senior officials who have suspended the ref because he made a mistake - I think I'll accept their version
|
|
By:
He has not been suspended because of the decision he made for the goal (or any other particular decision) - If referees were suspended every time they made a mistake there would be none left for next week.
The reason he has been suspended is because he was deemed to have had a poor game. Which again begs the question why aren't a whole heap of referees suspended each week. It seems the referees body is as spineless as referees individually generally are. Clearly if Pardew had not thrown his toys out of the pram then nothing would have been made over this incident. |
|
By:
What has the fact whether Hart was getting any where near the ball got to do with the price of a packet of biscuits?
Everything. You're trying to claim he's offside because he was 'Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision' Take this situation Tiote plays Gouffran through Hart sprints off his line and gets there just ahead but scuffs it straight to Tiote who hammers it in. Hart turns as soon as he's scuffed it but Gouffran is in his way (offside position). Is that offside even though Hart is 40 yards from goal and the shot goes in on the full? Gouffran isn't stopping Hart from playing the ball or being able to play it, he might be stopping Hart from making an attempt to play it but that's not offside because the attempt it completely futile. If you think Hart may have got his hands to it if Gouffran wasn't there then fair enough. I don't think he ever would have. You have to note that Gouffran can impact Hart's line of vision however he want's until it's left Tiote's boot and it's not offside. The speed of the shot, the City players in his vision and his position prior to it leaving Tiote's boot are what stops Hart being able to play the ball, not that Gouffran is there |