Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Southampton' started by TheSecondStain, Jun 28, 2016.
It's in black and white. The correct decision was made in allowing the goal.
Depends on the circumstances behind why the defender gets a touch on a cross.
If he's all alone, totally knobs up his header, and the "offside" attacker picks up the pieces, then it's probably onside.
If he's competing for the ball with the "offside" attacker, it's offside.
The bit about interfering with an opponent is just as important, as the deliberate attempt to play the ball part. As Tom alludes to, in your scenario, the attacker is probably interfering.
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
But the defender has made a deliberate attempt to play the ball and suceeded, which apparently negates offside according to the argument you've put forward.
The key part with tonight's incident is all on when the ball is played forwards. Rodri was miles away from Mings so was not active. Then Mings chested it down, therefore deliberately playing the ball so Rodri was no longer considered offside. As law says, being in an offside position is not an offence.
The rule you've posted alludes to the interfering and the deliberate touch being an 'or' rather than an 'and'.
And you'll never convince me that he wasn't interfering with play by being in that position anyway.
No it doesn't. It's all about what's going on at the moment when the ball is played forwards. Tonight, Rodri was miles away from Mings therefore was not offside. If you're crossing from out wide, the chances are the attacking player will be interfering with the play at the moment the cross is delivered.
But the deliberate playing of the ball means that the interfering of play is irrelevant. There's nothing in the rule that says both have to apply; it's either or.
If you're going by the absolute letter btw we should have had a pen on Saturday. Long being in an offside position was irrelevant.
It's hideously written legislation. And I'm not claiming to be an expert in it's interpretation. But I am inclined to agree with you about the "or " rather than "and".
However, my interpretation is that of the 10 bullet points, it is essentially bullet points 1, 2 and 7 are the three "headline" ways of being offside. Bullet points 3 to 6 are options linked with bullet point 2. Bullet points 8 and 9 are options linked with bullet point 7 (but maybe with a missing "or"?). Bullet point 10 helps to define what "gained an advantage" means in bullet point 7.
If that is correct, then you are offside if you fall under any of bullet points 1, 2 and 7.
The definition under bullet point 10 allows Rodri to escape being caught under bullet point 7, if one accepts that Mings deliberately played the ball (I accept that not everyone will accept that). The ball wasn't collected directly by Rodri, so seemingly allows him to escape from bullet point 1. Which leaves bullet point 2 - ie your point about interfering. If Rodri is interfering, under any of the options set out in bullet points 3 to 6, then he is offside under bullet point 2. Evidently here, it was decided that he wasn't. But absolutely others will disagree with that.
I see Mickey Flannigan has scored again tonight. A decent loan signing.
Does the fact that he was jogging towards the ball not make him active?
Although miles away from Mings when the ball was played forward, by the time Mings brought the ball down the City player was close enough to steal the ball from him.
Clear as mud lol. I'd agree with a fair bit of that to be honest, but as you say it's your interpretation rather than fact.
That's not a dig btw, just pointing out I don't think it's as simple as saying 'Rules say offside'. It's a game of opinions ultimately (And again, this is one of my issues with VAR; trying to apply consistent logic to a grey and imperfect rule set).
Not when he's that far away no.
With you there. I certainly don't see it as a clear-cut offside. But equally, I don't see it as a horror decision - which is why I first spoke up. Some posts were treating this like the worst decision since the Hand of God. Whereas in reality, I think the law provides sufficient scope to argue either way.
What wouldn't surprise me though is if this is a law-changing incident. A loophole that arguably exists, but which people weren't aware of. And now that it's happened, even the law-makers were hopefully watching that and thinking "Er, yeah, we really need to re-write the rules to ensure that is always offside in the future".
Bottom line for me is that one way or another, in trying to improve things, the authorities are fecking it up. Big time.
It’s a horrific decision. Of course he’s interfering with play - or you’ve never watched football
It's not a horrific decision because it's correct by the laws of the game.
That doesn’t make it not an horrific outcome