The Offside Rule

[oldtawnyowl]

2 hours ago, McRightSide said:

Line of vision. all that matters

 

Someone draw a red line of the ball

 

No, line of vision is not all that matters.

 

Being in an offside position and interfering with play also matters.

 

Flint obviously was!

 

Now that this "Warnock" ploy has been "outed" I doubt any referee will allow such a goal to stand in future.

 

Too late for us though.

 

[McRightSide]

12 minutes ago, oldtawnyowl said:

 

No, line of vision is not all that matters.

 

Being in an offside position and interfering with play also matters.

 

Flint obviously was!

 

Now that this "Warnock" ploy has been "outed" I doubt any referee will allow such a goal to stand in future.

 

Too late for us though.

 

Read the OP.

 

Your comments are from 2001

[Emerson Thome]

7 hours ago, Dan™ said:

 

Here's Dawson's line of vision when the free-kick was taken:

 

 

Flint is clearly in his line of vision, unless he has a transparent right arm.

 

But I still think it should have been a 4 man wall. Take Fox and Nuhiu* out of there and Dawson would have made it a lot easier for himself.

 

*actually best is take Hutchinson out and move Fletcher and Nuhiu across one, but you get the point...

[Animis]

2 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

Flint is clearly in his line of vision, unless he has a transparent right arm.

 

But I still think it should have been a 4 man wall. Take Fox and Nuhiu* out of there and Dawson would have made it a lot easier for himself.

 

*actually best is take Hutchinson out and move Fletcher and Nuhiu across one, but you get the point...

 

As far as I can see, the wall was set up as normal.

 

The problem with what happened is we struggle to communicate with each other and the ref.

 

Its almost the wall and other players simply ignored Flint. If nothing else it was clearly obvious that Flint was interfering with Dawson's line of vision and therefore, the positioning of the wall - why didn't one of the out-field players take control and stop the game - i.e put their hands up; walk to ref etc. They just stood there; complicit in what was inevitably to come.

 

Poor collective team awareness and communication. This is when you need a strong captain to take control. We were naïve and soft - we even just walked away back to the centre circle without a murmur to the ref. Only Dawson went over the lino - on his own so unlikely to influence events.

[Sergeant Tibbs]

11 hours ago, Dan™ said:

 

Flint said in the post-match interview that they've done it multiple times in the past, he literally admitted himself that his intention was to obscure the vision of the goalkeeper.

 

In fact, while this is probably not entirely against the rules, you can see him purposely blocking Cameron's vision while he's trying to line up the wall too. It's more than a bit shady, but nothing less than you expect from a Warnock team; push every rule to its limit and cry like a b*tch when an official calls it against you.

Warnock

b*tch

[Emerson Thome]

7 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

As far as I can see, the wall was set up as normal.

 

The problem with what happened is we struggle to communicate with each other and the ref.

 

Its almost the wall and other players simply ignored Flint. If nothing else it was clearly obvious that Flint was interfering with Dawson's line of vision and therefore, the positioning of the wall - why didn't one of the out-field players take control and stop the game - i.e put their hands up; walk to ref etc. They just stood there; complicit in what was inevitably to come.

 

Poor collective team awareness and communication. This is when you need a strong captain to take control. We were naïve and soft - we even just walked away back to the centre circle without a murmur to the ref. Only Dawson went over the lino - on his own so unlikely to influence events.

 

Who was the captain at this point? I didn't see who got the armband when Bannan went off - Hutch?

[geriatricowl]

Sets a dangerous precedent. 

[oldtawnyowl]

50 minutes ago, oldtawnyowl said:

 

No, line of vision is not all that matters.

 

Being in an offside position and interfering with play also matters.

 

Flint obviously was!

 

Now that this "Warnock" ploy has been "outed" I doubt any referee will allow such a goal to stand in future.

 

Too late for us though.

 

 

37 minutes ago, McRightSide said:

Read the OP.

 

Your comments are from 2001

 

See the current FIFA offside rules under the section "interfering with an opponent" part of which  states:-

 

Interfering with an opponent means "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent"

[Ian]

1 hour ago, oldtawnyowl said:

 

No, line of vision is not all that matters.

 

Being in an offside position and interfering with play also matters.

 

Flint obviously was!

 

Now that this "Warnock" ploy has been "outed" I doubt any referee will allow such a goal to stand in future.

 

Too late for us though.

 

There no point arguing with him....anyone who thinks that goal should be allowed has issues of some sort 

[Animis]

54 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

Who was the captain at this point? I didn't see who got the armband when Bannan went off - Hutch?

 

No sure - I expect it was and he's normally fairly switched on and vocal. I think we tired and were just going through the motions of trying to hold on. I hope Monk plays the events of the goal and afterwards to the whole team so they can think, what did I do there. I've played football and if this was going on in a match everyone would be shouting and flagging it up to the ref - no one said anything, which I find strange from pros.

 

Admittedly the officials should have spotted what was happening and I'd like to see the refs explanation for allowing the goal. Problem is the authorities simply group together and refuse to say owt, and the matter will simply drift away. If it was Liverpool or Man C on the other hand...

[Sonny]

Issues like this where people’s desire to always be contrarian stand out a mile.

 

It was offside.

[flo]

8 hours ago, Dan™ said:

 

Here's Dawson's line of vision when the free-kick was taken:

 

It's not even up for debate, he's in his direct line of vision to the ball. If he was standing perfectly still I can just about understand the goal being given (even though I don't think it should be), but jumping around like he was makes a complete mockery of the game.

 

Not being funny, but I thought unsporting behaviour used to be a bookable offence.

Have you got a picture when it was actually taken because he's not even started his run up there. 

[Bob]

As a former Class 1 referee, I understand the laws relating to Off Side are different today. However, after reading the new laws carefully, the positioning and movements of Flint are clearly in order to distract the keeper, the goal should have been disallowed. The referee and assistance should be suspended for at least two matches and given words of guidance.

[oldtawnyowl]

10 minutes ago, Sonny said:

Issues like this where people’s desire to always be contrarian stand out a mile.

 

It was offside.

 

Yea, "contrarian McRightSide" has a nice ring to it.

 

Or perhaps "contrarian McOnSide"

[gurujuan]

Be interesting to see what Dermot says about it on Ref Watch

[Jim]

13 hours ago, Dan™ said:

 

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:

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

 

After that catastrophe of a decision today, I can only imagine that you must need to stand behind the goalkeeper with your hands over his eyes for this clause to come into effect.

 

How "clearly" does it have to be? He was doing jumping jacks ffs!

 

I've said for years they should do away with it as no chuffing bugger knows it anyway. It would change and stretch the game but maybe change if for the better?

[McRightSide]

29 minutes ago, Ian said:

There no point arguing with him....anyone who thinks that goal should be allowed has issues of some sort 

As does someone who thinks Westwood cries off because of Flint.

[fatzooma]

12 hours ago, gurujuan said:

That goal wouldn’t have been allowed in the Premier League

First thing I I said..

VAR would have come into play and it would have been disallowed.

[McRightSide]

1 hour ago, oldtawnyowl said:

 

 

See the current FIFA offside rules under the section "interfering with an opponent" part of which  states:-

 

Interfering with an opponent means "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent"

if that’s the law then fair enough and I can go back to my original opinion of it being offside.

 

as I mentioned a couple of times, I was judging the new opinion on the OP

[oldishowl]

Because of where Flint is stood Dawson cannot see the ball at the time it is kicked.

How can that not be obstructing his line of vision?

If people are trying to say that the actually line of vision was eg a foot to the side of Flint , then are you seriously saying the officials could see that and took it into account . 
Under , even the current rules Flint was interfering with play, and I guarantee you he will not be allowed to do it again