Rival watch

[District Line]

Milan are currently losing 3-2 to Sassuolo just before half-time, having gone 2-0 up after less than 15 minutes. Not going well for them at the moment.
I'd only heard of their opposition the other day for the first time, I must admit. Must be the Wigan of Italy, I guess.

Typical. Milan the last team I was waiting on for my last bet to come in. Ronaldo misses an open goal to lose me three bets and now this

 

[The RDBD]

And yet the Vlad goal was given.
IMHO "interfering with play" should be if you are in front of the shooting player, and in the
triangle area formed by the shooting player and the posts. Whether the front player jumps over
the ball, goes thru their legs etc is irrelevant. Being inside said area is a distraction to the GK.

 

[PowerSpurs]

And yet the Vlad goal was given.
IMHO "interfering with play" should be if you are in front of the shooting player, and in the
triangle area formed by the shooting player and the posts. Whether the front player jumps over
the ball, goes thru their legs etc is irrelevant. Being inside said area is a distraction to the GK.

That would mean anyone on the goal line would be automatically offside even if the ball went into the other side of the goal with the goalie stranded.

Personally I think touching the ball should be the only trigger.

 

[Hoddle is a god]

If you take all discretion away from the ref, you'd have to hem the game in with so many rules that it would become a technical bore, like American football. Do any of you really want that? I don't.

 

[Inda]

The rule was introduced because we all love screaming shots from outside the 18yd box.

A shot on goal should never trigger an offside decision. If the ball takes a deflection, tough.

 

[notsosmartspur]

Sorry NSS, your post said he was 'interfering with play' which he clearly wasn't. For myself, I can't see how the words you bolded can include deliberately moving away from the ball. If he had touched it he would have been offside so there was no need for Hart to not dive. But it does say 'in the opinion of the referee' so since the ref thought so, I suppose the decision was right!

Lets not split hairs over interfering with play, its the old school general term for such a thing, its just a term, I much prefer to use that term as it goes than "interfering with an opponent"...that tends to draw unecessary comments from people with a basic sense of humour.

Hart didn't dive for the original shot, he was left flat-footed by Gouffrans last second dodge, thats how it looked to me.

 

[PleaseNotPoll]

Typical. Milan the last team I was waiting on for my last bet to come in. Ronaldo misses an open goal to lose me three bets and now this

4-2 now. All four Sassuolo goals have been scored by 19-year-old Domenico Berardi, a Juventus loanee.

 

[O.Spurcat]

"he was left flat-footed"

How many times have I said to you, always look at the keepers' feet. As you say, Hart was left flat-footed because he was distracted by the player, so the goal should not have stood.

 

[The RDBD]

"Personally I think touching the ball should be the only trigger."

Or unsighting the GK. Or ...

 

[PowerSpurs]

"he was left flat-footed"

How many times have I said to you, always look at the keepers' feet. As you say, Hart was left flat-footed because he was distracted by the player, so the goal should not have stood.

It seems very harsh to me that a player who is trying to get out of the way of the ball should be penalised. If he tried to touch it and missed that's a bit different.

 

[notsosmartspur]

"he was left flat-footed"

How many times have I said to you, always look at the keepers' feet. As you say, Hart was left flat-footed because he was distracted by the player, so the goal should not have stood.

Its a cracker of a debate, I saw on another forum that the entire BT Sport panel, Owen and co, and Dermot Gallagher all apparently said 'good' goal...amazing!

Hart should really know the rules, if he does, he goes banana's like you say.

 

[PowerSpurs]

"Personally I think touching the ball should be the only trigger."

Or unsighting the GK. Or ...

Specifically not distracting the GK!

This comes down to what the point of the offside law is anyway. Whatever the original intention it's main point now seems to me to be making the game more exciting by allowing the defence to operate an 'offside trap' which when it fails gives the opportunity for great passes to be played. Making distracting the goalkeeper part of the offence is a completely different issue.

 

[notsosmartspur]

It seems very harsh to me that a player who is trying to get out of the way of the ball should be penalised. If he tried to touch it and missed that's a bit different.

Its not about poor ol Gouffran in an offside position getting out the way, as far as Hart is concerned there's a player looking like he's going to deflect a shot, then gets out the way, that movement is enough to have affected Harts decision. If the player is offside, which Gouffran was, its a foul.

 

[The RDBD]

Isn't the point of offside to prevent a team gaining an unfair advantage ??
If so, then distracting the GK, impeding their line of vision etc must also count.

Ref discretion, as been said, is important though for some of the other scenarios
stated (which are none of the above + also the player cannot possibly have acted to
avoid the offside) .

 

[PowerSpurs]

Its not about poor ol Gouffran in an offside position getting out the way, as far as Hart is concerned there's a player looking like he's going to deflect a shot, then gets out the way, that movement is enough to have affected Harts decision. If the player is offside, which Gouffran was, its a foul.

I just don't buy the argument that Hart didn't dive because he was distracted by Gouffran. He didn't dive because the ball came through a crowd of his own players. But there was one Newcastle player, also just offside, who was much closer to touching the ball than Gouffran and I'd have more sympathy with the ref he had given him offside.

Don't Goalies generally go automatically for the original shot direction - that's why a small deflection is enough to beat them?

 

[PowerSpurs]

Isn't the point of offside to prevent a team gaining an unfair advantage ??
If so, then distracting the GK, impeding their line of vision etc must also count.

That's exactly what the current law is trying to do. But I can't see how running back into an onside position is "making a gesture or movement which, in
the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent". Surely it is trying to stop someone deliberately running across the goalies line of sight not trying their best to get onside.

 

[Boss]

You see this often where players stand in a blatant offside position as they are counting on the defence being pushed back, and therefore not picking up his run as they are more focused on what's ahead of them, but the guy in an offside position can still be interfering with play as he could cause one of the defenders to lose position through distraction.


If a player is running back from goal and purposely avoiding to interfere with play and isn't blocking the keepers view then fine, no offside call.

 

[PowerSpurs]

One of the reasons that assistant refs get so many offside calls wrong is that the current law makes it a near certainty that the defending and attacking players will be running fast, and often in opposite directions. It's been my view for a long time that it would be an easier call if there was some intention involved in the rule as then there would be no point in defences pushing up quickly and it would punish 'goal-hanging'. However I've no idea what effect that would have on the game in general.

 

[The RDBD]

It would be interesting to get stats on what the linesmen accuracy figures are for "false positives/negatives"
over the entire PL season for offside. I don't think they are nowadays waving the flag for any old straying
across the line, but I could be wrong.

 

[O.Spurcat]

Sian Massey, the female lineswoman seems to get her decisions spot on.