Another talking point re offside law has reared its head after newcastles disallowed goal ,for me its simple if a player has to move out of the way of goal bound shot and is in an offside position then he is interfering with play so therefore no goal ,thoughts ?
Yeah I have to say I'm inclined to agree. Lots of people have argued that Hart wasn't going to save it anyway, but personally I can completely understand why the referee felt his dive may have been impeded by Gouffran's presence.
Definitely thought it was offside. Really frustrates me when players jog back to an onside position anyway
Woah there. It was a goal, in spirit and letter. To be offside Gouffran had to be "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball". Plainly he did not, the ball went between him and Hart. His presence isn't enough for offside. It's as simple as that - 20 years ago it might have been flagged. Now, no way.
Sorry to say that isn't the part of the rule that's in dispute. It's all to do with whether ot not he affacts Joe Hart's line of vision. According to the law he is "in an offside position" if he "is obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision." If he isn't then he isn't offside. But there is room for interpretation here because an onside player, lingering offside in the GK's peripheral vision can affect his positioning (tenuous I know)
No, it's a ridiculously picky and hard-to-interpret rule. The fact that this even needs debating proves that. A player in an offside position should have to touch the ball to be called offside. The rule as it is is ruining games.
Ah the old debate-ender "it's as simple as that". Well, I would suggest it isn't. I know the current law, but where do you draw the line? If a player is standing right next to the goalkeeper, is he preventing the keeper from playing the ball (i.e. saving a shot)? I would suggest he is. If the player is standing next to the goalkeeper and when the shot comes in, moves away from the keeper, is he still preventing him from making the save? Perhaps not, in a physical sense, but his presence is clearly a distraction. Now you can argue about how far away Gouffran was or whether or not Hart was really distracted by him, but the referee has to make a call on that and personally I can understand why he decided the way he did. For me it's one of those decisions that could have gone either way, and the apparent consensus among pundits that it was the wrong decision is difficult to understand.
Hart would argue that he couldn`t tell whether Guffran was going to get out of the way in time, therefore couldn`t dive for it since he didn`t know if was going to be deflected or not. Not that he`d have saved it anyway. I think the goal should have stood.
No goal for me. He was close enough to the keeper to be making a nuisance of himself, in an offside position, when the ball was playedand therefore should be called offside.
Even by the ridiculous current law, there was no offside. Yes, he was close to the keeper, and yes, he was in the ball's trajectory, but even by the current ridiculous law that doesn't count as offside. He wasn't between the keeper and the ball. Hart had a clear sight of the ball from the moment it left Tiote's foot, and there was clearly no confusion caused by the offside players. They affected nothing.
How can you possibly know that? The fact that Hart didn't even dive surely shows that he was affected.
I agree with that. It feels a bit like the rule has been translated from another language, or at least inherited words from the old versions that don't quite make sense. The worst one is "gaining an advantage", which according to FIFA somehow means "kicking the ball after it hits the post". Even so, it shouldn't have been called I mean the rule is as simple as that line - ok I left out the bit about the method you prevent the opponent from playing the ball - there has to be some prevention of playing/challenging the ball. There are some diagrams in the law book about what is interfering with an opponent (if you are really geeky about this), numbers 6-8 are the important ones on P112. Being in an opponent's vision isn't the same as obstructing vision, otherwise you'd penalise everyone all the time. Anyway I'll stop being belligerent on this now I have stuff to do.
Keepers often don't dive when beaten by those sorts of shots. Peter Schmeichel often used to stand and stare as long shots whizzed past him. The fact is there was nothing blocking Hart's line of sight and he could see the ball from the moment (and before the moment) it was struck. If he in fact was distracted by anything during the brief moment the ball was flying into his top corner, and couldn't keep his eye on it despite the fact it was right there in front of him, that's his problem. He could get distracted by the fans behind his goal shouting, or by a pretty bird flying overhead, but it's part of his job to not get distracted.
What a ridiculous notion. You're not going to award a goal because the goalkeeper may have been distracted by a player who's not even in his eye-line? And that's why he didn't dive? Not because there was a plethora of Man City players in his way when Tiote hits his worldie strike which would've been hard to save with a clear eye-line anyway? Sounds good to me. Goal should've stood. At no point did Gouffran interfere with play, nor does he make an attempt to become active from an offside position. Therefore, not offside.
Well the fact they need 14 diagrams probably demonstrates quite effectively that the rule itself is too complicated. None of them reflect what seems to be a new trend this season in penalising players who are offside and attempt to play the ball or make a movement towards it (even if they don't make contact). Perhaps a few more diagrams are needed?
It's slightly easier to be distracted by someone standing next to you than by a bird! Maybe he was unsighted by his own players, but the referee has to decide, and as I say, I can understand why he ruled the way he did. You can say he was wrong, but to say the decision is completely unfathomable, as some are doing, is going too far.
Well obviously, the rule is very open to interpretation and cannot be clear cut, which is precisely why it's a ******ed rule.
