1. Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

Bradford Vs Gillingham Match Day Hub

Discussion in 'Gillingham' started by HOADIE_BOI, Mar 21, 2012.

  1. BSG

    BSG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,576
    Likes Received:
    32
    The debate has to be whether or not he attempted to play the ball and therefore was active. I believe that he did attempt to flick the ball on (albeit he did not touch the ball)and was therefore active by the letter of the law.
     
    #101
  2. brb

    brb Guest

    Copied from wiki...

    Since offside is judged at the time the ball is touched or played by a team-mate, not when the player receives the ball, it is possible for a player to receive the ball significantly past the second-to-last defender, or even the last defender (typically the goalkeeper).
     
    #102
  3. BSG

    BSG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,576
    Likes Received:
    32
    True enough but was the player who attempted to play the ball offside at the time the ball was played? I haven't seen the Gillsplayer footage yet and deleted the FL Show from V+

    Ok just checked and he was clearly in an offside position when the ball was played and since (in my opinion) he attempted to play the ball he was active
     
    #103
  4. brb

    brb Guest

    I think he was BSG but I do not think that is an offence in itself. It appears there is a lot of confusion around being actively involved and being active in the area, which have two different outcomes. Which is why I think the ref MAY have asked if he touched the ball, which would make him actively involved in the area.

    Edit: meaning I do not think it is an offence to be active in the area.

    Offside is offside in my opinion. These stupid rules just confuse the issue and make it more difficult for refs.
     
    #104
  5. BSG

    BSG Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,576
    Likes Received:
    32
    The closest situation I can think of is when a forward is jogging back from a offside position and a long ball goes over his head. IF he turns to chase the ball he is offside, regardless if he gets the ball or not, it is the attempt. The Bradford player made an attempt and was therefore active in my understanding of the law
     
    #105
  6. brb

    brb Guest

    I need to check are the rules different for the six yard box?

    ps. my understanding

    offside and one other...

    Actively INVOLVED at the point the ball was LAST played?

    Active in the area - not an offence

    The refs judgement might have been...did not touch the ball, was not in front of Gazza at the point the ball was last played (1 second after!!!)
     
    #106
  7. alwaysright

    alwaysright @ Very Angry Camel

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,988
    Likes Received:
    2,744
    Is it time to review the offside rule ? Yesterdays situation was a fiasco.The linesman insisted the player was offside. Did the referee succumb to pressure from the Bradford players and home crowd ?
    I think we should have a season to experiment without this rule - which provides too many grey areas - and seems to have an ever increasing number of different interpretations - to provide some defence of the referee having made a mistake.
    Any attacking forward, in the opponents half should be deemed active - because even if on the other side of the pitch, his mere presence requires the attention of one of the defending team - and that defender cannot allow himself to be closer to the ball.
    I know people will say that without the offside rule it would encourage ' route one ' football - but most teams employ 1 ( or at best 2) forwards and 3 or 4 defenders. If you cannot defend in those numbers then, as a whole, you have problems which won't be cured by the retention of the offside rule.
     
    #107
  8. brb

    brb Guest

    Just found this...

    To "interfere with play" means that the attacker must touch the ball or make a play for the ball. While "touching the ball" is obvious, an attacker has not made a play for the ball if, in fact, he does not move toward the ball or does not move any part of his body in an attempt to touch a ball played toward him. It is not correct to consider "in the area of active play" to be the same as "involved in active play" -- merely being near the ball is not enough to judge that the attacker is involved in active play. The attacker must act to play the ball, though the "action" does not have to include touching the ball.

    To "interfere with an opponent" means that an opponent must actually be prevented from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly blocking the opponent's line of vision or direction of movement or by "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent."

    To be deceived or distracted, however, the opponent must be within some reasonable distance of the play. There is no hard and fast test of "nearness" beyond the opinion of the referee but the interference with an opponent must be clear (not just hypothetical or theoretically possible) before deciding that an offside violation has occurred.
     
    #108
  9. itstimupnorth

    itstimupnorth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    518
    Where was that from brb?

    Assuming it was FA guidance or other similar official guidance then he was offside and the ref was wrong.

    Case closed. We're not going to get the extra 2 points, and in my opinion didn't deserve them anyway, but that's another debate, and one I haven't got the mental energy to enter into.
     
    #109
  10. Born Again Gill

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2011
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    5
    It seems you can beat the offside rule if you break it enough times in one game and encourage the officials they have been wrong. Eventually they will relent with self doubt and give you a goal.. Amateur refereeing indeed. However did we not get promoted from a corner that wasn't. It does kind of even itself out doesn't it!!
     
    #110

  11. brb

    brb Guest

    itstimupnorth - I cannot remember where I borrowed it from but it was not an official site. I posted it because it was basically the same as mentioned on other sites but just a bit more defined.

    What aspect of the players movement makes you believe the ref got it wrong. I'm just curious in this debate in regards to the interpretation of the rules.
     
    #111
  12. itstimupnorth

    itstimupnorth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    518
    I haven't seen the video, and so cannot with all honesty pass opinion based on what I have seen, but I'm more than happy to take BSG's opinion that the player whose legs the ball went through, and who by general concensus was in a potentially offside position, made a play for ball.

    According to the info you have just supplied ""To "interfere with play" means that the attacker must touch the ball or make a play for the ball. ..... The attacker must act to play the ball, though the "action" does not have to include touching the ball."

    He made a play for the ball, therefore was interfering with play, which makes him active.

    I think the video should be up on the BBC tomorrow so I'll have a look then, but it seems that the defining issue is whether the player made a play for the ball.
     
    #112
  13. itstimupnorth

    itstimupnorth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    518
    And as an aside from the main issue, is this the longest ever thread (other than the ongoing Blues Rock Cafe thread)?
     
    #113
  14. brb

    brb Guest

    itstimupnorth - difficult because in a bias opinion I would say the player made a play for the ball, although it could be interpreted as though the player moved out of the way of the ball, which then leads to the confusing scenario of does deceiving the goalkeeper by moving in to the area of play count towards a rule break, might count as a distraction.
     
    #114
  15. itstimupnorth

    itstimupnorth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    518
    And for it to count as distraction, the opponent must be within some reasonable distance of the play. Again from reports here rather than seeing with my own eyes he was a fair distance from the shot - even from my memory of the match that was the case - but if the ball went between his legs surely he became involved in the play, as you can't get all that much closer to the ball than that without playing it.
     
    #115
  16. itstimupnorth

    itstimupnorth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,373
    Likes Received:
    518
    It's not only the offside rule. On Saturday the Bradford player making long thow-ins from 'our' side of the pitch in the second half consistently made foul throws. Eventually the linesman (the same one that became involved in the offside controversy) saw it after a throw where his leading foot was about a foot over the line, but that was the third or fourth time that I had seen foul throws. We were at the other end of the pitch. The throws were under the linesman's nose. As you can't be offside at a throw-in what else was he looking for?
     
    #116
  17. alwaysright

    alwaysright @ Very Angry Camel

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,988
    Likes Received:
    2,744
    Well if I got in between my wife's legs she could probably expect that my intentention was to cause some 'interference'
    mind you - it doesn't really surprise me when she tells me I'm 'offside'
    ( just trying to lighten the mood )
     
    #117
  18. GeminiSwiftgfc

    GeminiSwiftgfc Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    26
    brb, My take on it was that when the shot was made he only had 1 defending player between him and the goal right, so that ticks 1 towards an offside decision, he was moving towards the centre of the goal which is where the shot was aimed at, so in my opinion that would make him active surely if he had been stood over on the far side and stayed there it'd be not active? He also made a flick for the ball, but failed to connect, this was surely an active and distracting movement. He was surely offside.

    If this had happened in the premadonna league or chumpions league then there would have been loads of "analysis" but this will just be ignored because it's league 2 and it's us so we'll never hear anything of it again.

    Anyway it's done now. Hope for better on Tuesday
     
    #118
  19. HOADIE_BOI

    HOADIE_BOI Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,617
    Likes Received:
    937
    I still think the goal should not stand as he was offside when the ball started moving.
     
    #119
  20. GeminiSwiftgfc

    GeminiSwiftgfc Well-Known Member
    Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2011
    Messages:
    1,215
    Likes Received:
    26
    Actually that is a brilliant interpretation always.
     
    #120

Share This Page