PopePiusX Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Yep, and that Watford player has a 36-inch foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ka58 Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 He was onside. Well timed run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richowl Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 Miles off. Get over it. ny7580.jpg serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmo Posted October 20, 2014 Share Posted October 20, 2014 F*cking Jesus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 So the picture shows unless i am boz eyed him a foot offside. I accept that the ball has moved say 6 inches. But if the pass was hit at 60mph my by basic maths Vydra was thus running at some 120mph to be onside and thus Norris Mcwhirter should be informed immediately Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richowl Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 He's here Einstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharrowowl Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 (edited) serious? Nope. Edited October 21, 2014 by sharrowowl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmw Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 So the picture shows unless i am boz eyed him a foot offside. I accept that the ball has moved say 6 inches. But if the pass was hit at 60mph my by basic maths Vydra was thus running at some 120mph to be onside and thus Norris Mcwhirter should be informed immediately Hard to credit how poorly understood the offside rule is on this forum. It is utterly irrelevant whether Vydra was offside when the ball was played. The player who ultimately infringed the rule was Ighalo. When the ball was played he was in an offside position by a good number of yards. That would not have mattered if he had not then become involved in the play. That is, if he had not touched the ball before either getting back in an onside position or a defender had touched the ball, he would have been allowed to touch the ball without committing an offence. As it was, he did then touch the ball (to score) before either of those things happened. At which point he should have been given offside. Do please read the rules: here or here. There is a concept of "being in an offside position" which is not a offence on its own but becomes one when the player "interferes with play". Touching the ball is interference with play. Ighalo commenced to be "in an offside position" from the moment the ball was played forward and remained in one up to the point where he received the ball from Vydra. At that moment he was both "in an offside position" and "interfered with play". Argue with that one if you can. I know some dimwit will try ... sigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopePiusX Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Here's a joke to sum up that last post: Knock Knock! Who's There? Andy Townsend! Oh no. You've written the words out really nicely though, you patronising blert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmw Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Here's a joke to sum up that last post: Knock Knock! Who's There? Andy Townsend! Oh no. You've written the words out really nicely though, you patronising blert. I'll take that as a compliment ... er, I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davedave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Hard to credit how poorly understood the offside rule is on this forum. It is utterly irrelevant whether Vydra was offside when the ball was played. The player who ultimately infringed the rule was Ighalo. When the ball was played he was in an offside position by a good number of yards. That would not have mattered if he had not then become involved in the play. That is, if he had not touched the ball before either getting back in an onside position or a defender had touched the ball, he would have been allowed to touch the ball without committing an offence. As it was, he did then touch the ball (to score) before either of those things happened. At which point he should have been given offside. Do please read the rules: here or here. There is a concept of "being in an offside position" which is not a offence on its own but becomes one when the player "interferes with play". Touching the ball is interference with play. Ighalo commenced to be "in an offside position" from the moment the ball was played forward and remained in one up to the point where he received the ball from Vydra. At that moment he was both "in an offside position" and "interfered with play". Argue with that one if you can. I know some dimwit will try ... sigh. Surely by your own words then, Ighalo was onside, because as soon as Vydra touched the ball as at that point he is now in an onside position (behind the ball) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelowl Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Surely by your own words then, Ighalo was onside, because as soon as Vydra touched the ball as at that point he is now in an onside position (behind the ball) i reckon we need legal help on this, simpson's blood team may turn this one down tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmw Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Surely by your own words then, Ighalo was onside, because as soon as Vydra touched the ball as at that point he is now in an onside position (behind the ball) I said when a defender touched the ball. How can another attacker touching the ball render his team-mate onside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopePiusX Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I said when a defender touched the ball. How can another attacker touching the ball render his team-mate onside? You can't be offside behind the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davedave Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I said when a defender touched the ball. How can another attacker touching the ball render his team-mate onside? You said by getting back onside or a defender touching the ball. If you are behind the ball, even if it is your team mate who has it, you are onside surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopePiusX Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Also, Page 14 of your second link: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf. I think that's the end of the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest _Ibbo_ Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Hard to credit how poorly understood the offside rule is on this forum. It is utterly irrelevant whether Vydra was offside when the ball was played. The player who ultimately infringed the rule was Ighalo. When the ball was played he was in an offside position by a good number of yards. That would not have mattered if he had not then become involved in the play. That is, if he had not touched the ball before either getting back in an onside position or a defender had touched the ball, he would have been allowed to touch the ball without committing an offence. As it was, he did then touch the ball (to score) before either of those things happened. At which point he should have been given offside. Do please read the rules: here or here. There is a concept of "being in an offside position" which is not a offence on its own but becomes one when the player "interferes with play". Touching the ball is interference with play. Ighalo commenced to be "in an offside position" from the moment the ball was played forward and remained in one up to the point where he received the ball from Vydra. At that moment he was both "in an offside position" and "interfered with play". Argue with that one if you can. I know some dimwit will try ... sigh. Thats exactly the argument i've been having....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmw Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 Also, Page 14 of your second link: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf. I think that's the end of the discussion. Ok, I agree that shows my earlier analysis wasn't the whole story. But I think the relevant example is actually the one on slide 26. That describes the situation almost exactly. Ighalo would not have been offside if he had not been in an offside position when Vydra crossed the ball for him. So the question is whether Ighalo was in an onside position as the ball was kicked by Vydra. He was not being played on by any defenders so could only have been onside by virtue of being behind the ball when the pass was made. I actually don't think he was behind it when the pass was played although he was obviously behind it when he kicked it into the goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopePiusX Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 I've just had another look and assuming the mown strips across the pitch are level, he's about half a mown strip behind the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmw Posted October 21, 2014 Share Posted October 21, 2014 OK, I take it all back. It does hinge on whether Vydra is offside or not. And I think he is, albeit very marginally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now