Jump to content

Offside.


Recommended Posts

I note that for everyone who said it was "onside"...... the commentators last night said it was clearly off ! 

 

It isn't 'clearly' anything, certainly not at real time.

 

I note that the posts pointing out exactly why you were wrong in your initial assertions have been completely ignored.

 

You are DEFINITELY Andy Townsend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'advantage' law was 'clarified' as a result to the backpass rule being introduced - forwards retreating from challenging the goalkeeper kept being flagged for offside and they changed it thus, but some referees played on (c.f Bebeto against The Netherlands in USA '94) and others didn't, so they idiotically kept tinkering with their interpretation until we got to this. It's a shocking law, but this bit of it was correctly applied.

Well put , it is a shocking law nowadays.

Did anyone see Shakthars 3rd goal last night. It immediately reminded me of this. The guy who sidefoots the ball home was miles offside when the original ball is played. The defenders never catch him up and he has a simple tap in. How has he not gained an advantage?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well put , it is a shocking law nowadays.

Did anyone see Shakthars 3rd goal last night. It immediately reminded me of this. The guy who sidefoots the ball home was miles offside when the original ball is played. The defenders never catch him up and he has a simple tap in. How has he not gained an advantage?

 

So that's now 5 real world examples where the goal has been allowed in these circumstances, and in 3 of them the defenders have not complained to the officials.

 

Are we any closer yet to accepting that however imperfect the rule might be, it is being administered correctly and consistently, and those saying otherwise (including Stuart Gray) are wrong?

 

To be fair, FIFA really ought to look at amending the rule. The Wiltord and Shakthar examples in particular show a goalscorer WAY ahead of the defenders who have no chance to make up the ground and this gives the attacking team an almost unfair advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

I wouldn't call it progress when you still maintain the goal was legitimate with the rules correctly applied. Vydra was offside Saturday, and here we are, Wednesday, he was still offside. There is no getting away from that.

You can moan about directives and advantage given to the forward in that instance - that may explain the decision, but it was still an incorrect decision. On or off...he was off. It was a marginal call the linesman got wrong.

As for the Ighalo farce; If he wasn't offside, he should be, because any rule that deems otherwise in a clear advantageous situation with the head start he gained from an offside position...is a nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So we've finally abandoned the idea that Ighalo was offside (which is after all the main reason this thread has reached 29 pages due to all those who didn't know the rules)?

 

I'd call that progress.

He was morally offside

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've treated Vydra's status as separate all along. His position was always secondary because that was not the focus of all the whinging. My mission was to take to task those bleating about Ighalo when they clearly didn't understand the rules, and even continued arguing after these were demonstrated to them in numerous different ways. 

 

However, I still don't think it is a fact that Vydra was offside. The still we have was a fraction of a second too late as the ball is already in motion. A picture at the actual moment the ball was played would show an even finer margin. Even if he was an inch or two beyond the last defender, it is ridiculous to blame the linesman for not seeing that in real time. And when the rules actually require him to give the benefit of any doubt to the attacking team, it can still be argued he did the right thing.

 

I don't see what is to be gained by continuing to complain about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

(i) I've treated Vydra's status as separate all along.

(ii) I still don't think it is a fact that Vydra was offside.

(iii) Even if he was an inch or two beyond the last defender[/size]

(iv) I don't see what is to be gained by continuing to complain about it.

(i) how convenient for your argument. You can't apply one rule more rigorously than another just to serve your purpose.

(ii) he was, and photographic evidence proves that.

(iii) off is off, a foot or a yard...makes no difference.

(iv) you've been fuelling the argument for days.

Edited by wilyfox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(i) how convenient for your argument. You can't apply one rule more rigorously than another just to serve your purpose.

(ii) he was, and photographic evidence proves that.

(iii) off is off, a foot or a yard...makes no difference.

(iv) you've been fuelling the argument for days.

 

(i) I've made that point over and over again. There has been no misunderstanding of the laws of the game relating to Vydra. Loads of ignorant people where whinging about Ighalo and the rules so I (and others) set to put them straight. And despite all the evidence, including the bloody rules of the game itself, they kept bleating about an issue they were wholly wrong about. 

(ii) I don't believe it is proven. The photograph is a split second later than the actual point of contact as the ball has clearly already moved slightly. But as I said, this argument was almost entirely about Ighalo's position, much to some poster's embarrassment, and even our own manager.

(iii) At the very most, Vydra is offside by a foot whilst running at speed. Are you seriously suggesting this is something the linesman should be accurately expected to perceive with great accuracy? And the rules make it clear he should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker and so it was perfectly appropriate for him to keep the flag down. The fact is, his perception proved much better than thousands of fans slagging him off.

(iv) Because several people simply weren't prepared to accept they were wrong even as the evidence was being piled up against them. Is it my fault that some didn't even know that being behind the ball meant you were onside or that they were prepared to reinvent reality by saying Ighalo was not in such a position even when the video clearly proved otherwise?

 

What do you hope to gain in this crusade? The rules and how they are applied fully support the goal being given. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relating to pint (i) above, if Vydra had gone through and scored, without Ighalo being there at all, then there would simply not have been such an almighty debate about it. We'd probably have collectively decided he was probably offside but close enough for the linesman to have made an understandable mistake. Therefore, this issue has been largely about Ighalo only. Trying to pretend otherwise now just makes you look like a sore loser, clamouring desperately to have been 'right' all along. It isn't my fault some of you didn't know the rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

'My mission was...'

  

'What do you hope to gain in this crusade?'

My crusade?! Alrighty then.

You won't concede Vydra was offside having realised you've claimed the goal was legitimate and should have stood about ten times now. Instead, you're defiantly standing by your fickle application of the rules. I get it...the ones that suit, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  You won't concede Vydra was offside having realised you've claimed the goal was legitimate and should have stood about ten times now. Instead, you're defiantly standing by your fickle application of the rules. I get it...the ones that suit, eh?

 

I've conceded many times that Vydra MIGHT have been offside, including in each of my last two posts. But don't let that get in the way of your polarised 'I'm 100% right and you're 100% wrong' bluster. After starting with outrage about Ighalo being offside no less than twice, we have now reduced the debate to a matter of a few inches regarding a different player altogether. I think that speaks volumes about who has been least consistent.

 

And there is nothing fickle about my interpretation of the rules, which are perfectly specific. Many posters were ignorant about staying behind the ball being onside, wasted time arguing about irrelevances such as the direction of the second pass, what direction Ighalo was running in at the first through ball or whether a defender ran beyond him at any point. My position was clear from the outset and has remained so. Many others have had to back down, or like yourself, shifted the focus of their attention. But if you prefer to keep desperately applying whitewash to everything without even considering it's merit or context, knock yourself out.

 

If you can explain why the linesman was so inept as a human being to have not noticed a rapidly moving forward being offside by no more than a few inches or why he was wrong to apply the rule about benefit of the doubt in accordance with FIFA directives, I'd be pleased to consider it. Maybe Vydra was a fraction offside (as I've repeated many times, and in your clamour you've overlooked) but what difference does it make? Will it compensate for the embarrassment of all those who shrieked so long and loud about irrelevant matters that they proved ignorant about anyway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

My mission was to take to task those bleating about Ighalo when they clearly didn't understand the rules

(i) I've made that point over and over again.

Loads of ignorant people where whinging about Ighalo and the rules so I (and others) set to put them straight.

they kept bleating about an issue they were wholly wrong about. 

much to some poster's embarrassment, and even our own manager.

Because several people simply weren't prepared to accept they were wrong

Is it my fault that some didn't even know that being behind the ball meant you were onside

It isn't my fault some of you didn't know the rules.

I've conceded many times that Vydra MIGHT have been offside

 

And there is nothing fickle about my interpretation of the rules, which are perfectly specific. Many posters were ignorant about staying behind the ball being onside, wasted time arguing about irrelevances such as the direction of the second pass

I'd be pleased to consider it. Maybe Vydra was a fraction offside (as I've repeated many times, and in your clamour you've overlooked) but what difference does it make? Will it compensate for the embarrassment of all those who shrieked so long and loud about irrelevant matters that they proved ignorant about anyway?

And to think I called you pompous, eh...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest wilyfox

Is name-calling and pouting a bigger hand than logic and facts?

Dunno. Why don't you mull over that during self-reflection? But try not to talk down to yourself as you do others. You might not like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...