Just a short comment on the noise surrounding yesterdays deserved win; At the hard to comprehend home loss to 'flookie Burnley' didn't there striker set off from a clear offside position only for Rodreguez to run on from an onside position 'A-La' Brady! To score the winner? Stop moaning McDermott justice has been served!
There was a difference with the Burnley one, the striker actually checked one of our defenders, physically preventing him from being able to make a challenge. I don't think either should have stood as players in offside positions played a role in both goals, but on the interpretation in place for referees to use McLean didn't physically get involved in play so it was a correct decision where as the Burnley player clearly did.
I haven't managed to see the incident in question but from what I am reading McClean was in an offside position started running for the through ball but didn't touch it, left it to Brady who ran in from an onside position and scored. Cause it was a goal. The linesman and the ref interpreted the offside rule as it should of been interpreted
The ball was passed to McLean who ran after it and was then told by Brady before touching it to leave it (There's a link on another thread). As far as the interpretation of the rules goes, the referees have been given a directive which even the Reading player (Murty) on Five Live said made it a brilliant decision. If he's aware of it the other players should have been, McDermott may not have been if the day they were visited by the ref in preseason he left them to it with the players. There's no debating that within the rules as they've been laid out to referees it was the correct decision. Only reason I'm saying it shouldn't have stood is because I would consider that someone trying to pass to McLean makes him active whether he touches it or not, so I would have given the referees a different directive that would see goals like that disallowed. I'm also saying on threads we should try and exploit it every week by standing someone offside to make the defence stop and appeal for it while someone else runs through and scores. I don't agree with the wording of the directive but while it's in place we may as well exploit it.
If we conceeded that goal I'd be more annoyed with the defenders for not playing to the whistle and not doing their jobs with their arms in the air than berating the officials. Quite how McDermott thinks his 'keeper was distracted by Mclean any more than in any other application of this rule I've seen is beyond me. Besides, When Brady took posession he was far enough from goal for the 'keeper to have time to reset himself anyway, and the shot was taken from the same position regardless of whether it was Mclean or Brady who took it. Brady was 30 yds out when he ran onto it FFS! I can understand if his view was blocked by Mclean or if he was offering a different option/angle for the shot with their goalie not knowing where the shot was oming from but it is about as clear an interpretation of the new offside rule as I've seen. Mcdermott was just p!ssd off that they'd conceeded a soft one when his team had most of the running. That's all. I thought he made himself look a bit clueless in the interview - Explaining the rule as it stands and then saying he wasn't aware of it. Just daft really. I could see nothing wrong with the decision - and yes I would say we were lucky it stood if I thought it was a poor one.
Spot On John. ^^^ this. I dont understand the issues or what all the fuss it about at all. I was there and Brady the scorer was onside END OF. Just dont see what all the fuss is / was about. Brian (ffs) McDermott should learn the rules prior to making stupid comments on the FLS. Came accross as sour grapes to me. He should have a go at Readings forwards first. Speaking of which Scoring and Brothel springs to mind. He could also say how well our backline played ?
Couldn't agree more, McDermott comes out as a bit of a fool, as if he does not know the off side rules.
