*** Tottenham Hotspur vs Scum OMT ***

[Kandi1977]

The rule is not perfect and needs tweaking, I agree. But a simple "it's an offside offence if you are placed in an offside position, regardless of where you are in relation to the ball or situation" type rule, would just be ridiculous.

Sent with Miele C1 Vacuum cleaner

 

[mudshark]

The rule is not perfect and needs tweaking, I agree. But a simple "it's an offside offence if you are placed in an offside position, regardless of where you are in relation to the ball or situation" type rule, would just be ridiculous.

Sent with Miele C1 Vacuum cleaner

Personally, I think it's had too much 'tweaking', which is why we've ended up where we are. What's needed IMO is a simplification, and most particularly for actions in the danger zone.

 

[NaijaSpurs]

Injury concerns http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...s-christian-eriksen-is-added-to-a3394346.html

 

[Spur of the moment]

Personally, I think it's had too much 'tweaking', which is why we've ended up where we are. What's needed IMO is a simplification, and most particularly for actions in the danger zone.

You may be right but finding a simplification that does not result in a flurry of infuriating interruptions and ridiculous disallowances may not an easy trick to pull off. Some of us can remember how it used to be a decade or two back when far too many perfectly good goals were disallowed for 'technical' offsides.

 

[paxtonwolf]

Injury concerns http://www.standard.co.uk/sport/foo...s-christian-eriksen-is-added-to-a3394346.html

Does any other club get more players injured in international matches than us. Seems like everytime we have a round of fixtures at least one player comes back injured

Without Alli,Eriksen,Lamela and Dembele in our midfield, we are down to bare bones almost

 

[mudshark]

You may be right but finding a simplification that does not result in a flurry of infuriating interruptions and ridiculous disallowances may not an easy trick to pull off. Some of us can remember how it used to be a decade or two back when far too many perfectly good goals were disallowed for 'technical' offsides.

I think that's what's called begging the question

 

[Daisuk]

Read the rule fully. It's a close call, but they way rule is worded, you could argue that it was interpret the right way. My guess though, is that the assistant referee judged all to be onside. He's 40 meters away, and it's impossible for him to see how close the players are to each other or the ball. If he believed any of Kocielny or Sanchez was offside, he would/should flag regardless, and it would be up to Clattenburg to decide if they were interfering with play. I simply think the lino just got it wrong initially, and it was nothing to do with the interpretation of the law.

Sent with Miele C1 Vacuum cleaner

From the FIFA rule book;

Interfering with an opponent” means:
Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision or movement.
Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

I guess the "in the opinion of the referee" is the key thing here, which is ridiculous. The two scummers have made movements beyond our last defender, and in doing so is "distracting" him (whatever that means), so our last defender tries to catch them. They clearly gain an advantage from being in an offside position because of this.

So it's up to interpretation. Calling it either way would've been right, as it's up to the ref to decide. I'm not sure how they two offside placed scummers aren't making movements that are distracting our player (to desperately defend) though.

 

[Spur of the moment]

I think that's what's called begging the question

Precisely.

 

[Bedfordspurs]

From the FIFA rule book;

Interfering with an opponent” means:
Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision or movement.
Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

I guess the "in the opinion of the referee" is the key thing here, which is ridiculous. The two scummers have made movements beyond our last defender, and in doing so is "distracting" him (whatever that means), so our last defender tries to catch them. They clearly gain an advantage from being in an offside position because of this.

So it's up to interpretation. Calling it either way would've been right, as it's up to the ref to decide. I'm not sure how they two offside placed scummers aren't making movements that are distracting our player (to desperately defend) though.

Well Sanchez was offside as he was ahead of the second man and was also in our keepers vision and he was right in front of him therefore he was offside by those rules

 

[Rorschach]

The fact that pundits, ex refs, loads of other dikheads, and more importantly us (the real experts) can't decide conclusively whether it is offside or not basically makes a mockery of the rule.

It was offside by current definition as I know it it, but irrespective it is time for a change of the rule as @mudshark says.

In short you are trying to affect play or you are not. IMO if you are walking/jogging/running/limbo dancing away from the action then you get a pass. Otherwise you are affecting play and are offside.
I also think on the defensive side, if you are injured/prone on the pitch then you are not counted as a defender for the purposes of offside. This is open to abuse I guess but the logic makes sense to me.

The rule has got too convoluted now and needs simplification.

 

[SpurMeUp]

Had Wimmer not headed the ball, it would have been offside as the ball came to the two offside players. Not interfering is fine if you're standing by the corner flag, but if you're in the line of the flight of the ball, then it is off side. The rules back this up, but refs are not interpreting the rules well imo.

 

[Daisuk]

Well Sanchez was offside as he was ahead of the second man and was also in our keepers vision and he was right in front of him therefore he was offside by those rules

Yeah, that too. So the rules can go fudge themselves.

 

[Kandi1977]

The fact that pundits, ex refs, loads of other dikheads, and more importantly us (the real experts) can't decide conclusively whether it is offside or not basically makes a mockery of the rule.

It was offside by current definition as I know it it, but irrespective it is time for a change of the rule as @mudshark says.

In short you are trying to affect play or you are not. IMO if you are walking/jogging/running/limbo dancing away from the action then you get a pass. Otherwise you are affecting play and are offside.
I also think on the defensive side, if you are injured/prone on the pitch then you are not counted as a defender for the purposes of offside. This is open to abuse I guess but the logic makes sense to me.

The rule has got too convoluted now and needs simplification.

As a defender, you can not put yourself out of play by laying down on the field, or by any other means. The only exception is to receive treatment outside the playing field when the referee has given permission to such.