It is all about definition of the word "interfering". Like Swarbs quoted, it is NOT based on the position of the player: 1. Interfering with play by touching the ball 2. Interfering with a player by obstructing their movement or vision, or distracting / deceiving them in a way that prevents them playing the ball 3. Gaining an advantage by playing a ball that rebounds to him You could argue point 2 comes into force. BUt the argument from the referees (Not only Dean but also Poll who has put his oar in this morning!) is that Cisse did not do anything, any contact was made by Evans and not vice versa and he did not obstruct anyone or the GK. Another argument goes like this: If the shot had gone straight in without touching Evans, it would have been an undisputed goal. what's the difference if it touches Evans (not Cisse) on the way to goal? As I said on a purely rational basis it should be an offside but on the letter of the law as currently interpreted, it could be given as a goal. It is interesting that amongst the papers today there seem to be 50-50 divided opinion.
The difference is if the ball had gone in without touching Evans (provided Cisse was not blocking the keeper's view) then the offside player has had no bearing at all on the sequence of events which led to the goal. The key point here is deciding whether Cisse's positioning directly affected Evans' actions and therefore directly affected the goal being scored. This has been debated to death and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that nobody knows for certain except Johnny Evans. The rule is far too grey.
To be clearer from my original reply: I think yesterday's goal could fall under heading 2. Whilst Cisse didnt prevent Johnny Evans playing the ball, it could be argued that rushing the clearance because of Cisse's positiong has prevented Evans from playing it clearly. And the fact that I have used the word could in reference to that rule shows where interpretation leads to greay areas. Like you said, logically it should be offside. So the rules should reflect this.
This is probably the key thing. Evans went down holding his face in an "oh ****" manner after conceding the goal, and then half heartedly looked at the linesman once he saw the flag. I reckon if he'd screamed at the linesman for offside as soon as the ball went in the goal wouldn't have been awarded - the way he reacted made it look like he hadn't realised Cisse was offside, or he didn't feel Cisse's position had influenced him.
If Evans didn't connect with the ball and the Newcastle player did and scored the goal would have been disallowed..
Very interesting point, and on reflection probably correct - although in a sport where players spend half of every game trying to deceive a referee I think basing assumptions on the reactions of players as a general practice is very dangerous. I still think the benefit of the doubt in a situation like that should probably go to the defending team. Whether Evans realises Cisse is offside or not, his actions could still be rsultant of Cisse being there. Players will react to what they believe has happened. Evans was marking Cisse. He rushed a clearance. In his mind Cisse was onside so he thinks 'S***, ive scored an owngoal.' Again, in this instance what you have said is probably right. Evans would probably have been screaming blue murder all over the papers if that clearance was because of Cisse - his silence does speak volumes. Anyway Im not even making sense to myself now, so bottom line - that should have been offside. You cant stand a yard offside 8 yards from the goal and not be intefering with play. The 'active or inactive' rule was brought in to prevent players on the touchline being caught offside when a ball is being played through the centre. Its been taken to the other extreme now and needs bringing back...
Correct. Lesson 1: if an opposition player is clearly offisde, do not f**king play the damn ball and let him have it...
Unfortunately refs are now so used to players trying to con them that I think whenever a player doesn't try to appeal or claim something they just won't give it regardless. Another unfortunate side effect of the diving and simulation in the game at the moment - once again the honest players who just play the game are punished and so have to ask themselves what's the point of being honest? Agree 100%. Offside is offside - if you are nearer the goal than the defenders then you are offside and it's your responsibility to get out of the way of play until you are back in an onside position. Simples.
Ferguson gets away with acting like he did. http://www1.skysports.com/football/...x-Ferguson-over-his-Boxing-Day-touchline-rant
It's the season of goodwill. How else do you explain Mancini claiming the ref "ate too much Xmas dinner" and no charge, yet when SAF says Wiley is unfit he gets a four match touchline ban?
Everyone can try to explain the rules as much as they want but they are simply not black and white. Like I said earlier, during an attack if the defends has to even keep an eye on the attacker, like Evans did yesterday, then that attacker is in play. His mere presence affects how the defender reacts and he is therefore interfering. I honestly think to suggest otherwise is nonsense.
The FA could not charge SAF in this instance and yet let off the likes of Mancini, Redknapp, and Martinez. All have questioned the referee's decisions. It was only a matter of how tactfully their views were put across. Mind you I can see why SAF got punished for the Wiley incident. He questioned the ref's ability to do his job whereas Mancini queried whether Xmas had a (temporary) detrimental effect on a ref. Rather different...
Agree totally. Thinking about it now, the MOTD angle just seems ridiculous - he didnt touch the ball so he isnt intefering with play. Its nonsense. A player is 'intefering with play' if he is anywhere near the action area. Every player on the defending team takes up their position based on where and how the opponents are acting. He is clearly, clearly and active member of that move just by his very presence that close to the ball. As i said in a previous post, 'inactive' was brought in to prevent players on the other side of the pitch from the ball and nowhere near the action being called offside in a move. To use the same rule to call a player 8 yards from goal in the middle of the area while a cross come into that very area 'inactive' is absolutely ridiculous..
for GOD sake .. Alan pardew get only 2 matches ban after harassing refs and then push 4th official at the back .. those idiots who are asking for Sir Alex to be banned seem never seen how their managers harasses the refs and get away with it every time
Part from when Pardew did that I was saying he should be banned? Ferguson spent the 2nd half until Man United took the lead, harassing the officials more than any manager I have seen for a long time, since Ferguson! Going on to the pitch before the start of the 2nd half as well, first time I can remember seeing that happen. Hell Ferguson has been well out of order to officials two games in a row, and got away with it. Valencia was lucky to stay on the pitch yesterday, as well.
AW do it in daily bases at every single decision and never get punished .. so what? or you want different role just bcz it is UTD or Sir ALEX? Pardew shouted on ref and pushed them !! yet get 2 match ban .. and he shout at them at every game and never get punished .. what that tells you?
Now you are f**king looking for problems where there have been none. Pardew himself accepted that there was no malice in the tackle and it was unfortunate that Anita got injured. FFS Valencia was NOT lucky to stay on the pitch.
It was a very poor challenge that should have been a yellow card. please log in to view this image I'm saying yellow, even though it was two footed.
