So another apology will be on it’s way - Boro goal offside? (Merged)

[Numero Uno]

We don’t want an apology.......just stick your ******* flag up when someone is yards offside!!!!

[Lez]

I thought our left back kept him on tbh

[MarcusX]

1 minute ago, Lez said:

I thought our left back kept him on tbh

I think it was closer than it looked because of the angle, also could argue Taylor Moore’s header then made him onside

[cityexile]

Just now, Lez said:

I thought our left back kept him on tbh

He was well offside. The only argument would be he was inactive and Moore’s touch played him on, but that would be bordering on farcical. Missed when clearly offside in first half as well. Having said that, draw the most we deserved overall.

[REDOXO]

He was a yard off side when the ball was played but Moore getting something on it played him onside apparently 

[Lez]

2 minutes ago, cityexile said:

He was well offside. The only argument would be he was inactive and Moore’s touch played him on, but that would be bordering on farcical. Missed when clearly offside in first half as well. Having said that, draw the most we deserved overall.

Ok I'm only going by the TV angle. Wither way I thought Boro were the more impressive side.

[cityexile]

2 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

He was a yard off side when the ball was played but Moore getting something on it played him onside apparently 

I have to say I think that is nonsensical. It would need to be argued he was inactive before Moore’s touch. The ball was clearly a pass to him he was going for, and the fact that a defender trying to do his job then gets a touch should not put them onside.

Dont get me wrong, Boro played well and deserved something, but not having that.

[REDOXO]

1 minute ago, cityexile said:

I have to say I think that is nonsensical. It would need to be argued he was inactive before Moore’s touch. The ball was clearly a pass to him he was going for, and the fact that a defender trying to do his job then gets a touch should not put them onside.

Dont get me wrong, Boro played well and deserved something, but not having that.

Nonsensical maybe but certainly what the ‘experts’ are saying. 

[Lez]

2 minutes ago, cityexile said:

I have to say I think that is nonsensical. It would need to be argued he was inactive before Moore’s touch. The ball was clearly a pass to him he was going for, and the fact that a defender trying to do his job then gets a touch should not put them onside.

Dont get me wrong, Boro played well and deserved something, but not having that.

Laughable if this is the case. Both lino's were shitte.

[Robin1988]

10 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I think it was closer than it looked because of the angle, also could argue Taylor Moore’s header then made him onside

You’re right, but Taylor doesn’t play that ball if he’s not there... active v inactive, good case that it should’ve been flagged

[Dastardly and Muttley]

13 minutes ago, cityexile said:

He was well offside. The only argument would be he was inactive and Moore’s touch played him on, but that would be bordering on farcical. Missed when clearly offside in first half as well. Having said that, draw the most we deserved overall.

That's the argument being presented by Dermot Gallagher via Sky. Horrendous rule if that's the case, as everyone has said. The ball was being passed for him to run on to, he was running on to it, how is that inactive?!

[joe jordans teeth]

13 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

I think it was closer than it looked because of the angle, also could argue Taylor Moore’s header then made him onside

When the ball was played he was offside,the question is was he active and clearly because the ball was heading for him he was so offside again 

[ChippenhamRed]

My view is he gained an advantage by being in an offside position, therefore he was offside and should have been flagged.

[Numero Uno]

I’m not sure the lino’s really know the law tbh.

[Marina's Rolls Royce]

8 minutes ago, Numero Uno said:

I’m not sure the lino’s really know the law tbh.

In which case- I'm suddenly qualified to be a lino.

[cityexile]

28 minutes ago, joe jordans teeth said:

When the ball was played he was offside,the question is was he active and clearly because the ball was heading for him he was so offside again 

What the rule says

You are onside if the opponent deliberately plays the ball, which Moore did. I think we all accept if Moore has tried to head it back to the goalie and been intercepted, it’s ok.

Equally, he is offside if 

“A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by...(eg) clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent.”

I would argue he was trying to run on to the ball, which impacts on what Moore does. You can argue how close is close, but it was his presence that directly impacted what Moore tried. 

It is debateable I suppose rule wise, but still seems nonsense to me. He self evidently impacted play from an offside position. Not to salty because Boro looked pretty good and did not deserve to lose, but the Lino also missed one from him in the first half, which luckily was saved.

[Northern Red]

If he's not there then Moore doesn't play the ball.

That should be enough to decide whether he's off or not.

[Stortz]

Clearly offside.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Stortz said:

Clearly offside.

People making excuses for that are talking shit. The law requires that to be given offside, talk about phasing as much as you want.

[joe jordans teeth]

6 minutes ago, cityexile said:

What the rule says

You are onside if the opponent deliberately plays the ball, which Moore did. I think we all accept if Moore has tried to head it back to the goalie and been intercepted, it’s ok.

Equally, he is offside if 

“A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by...(eg) clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent.”

I would argue he was trying to run on to the ball, which impacts on what Moore does. You can argue how close is close, but it was his presence that directly impacted what Moore tried. 

It is debateable I suppose rule wise, but still seems nonsense to me. He self evidently impacted play from an offside position. Not to salty because Boro looked pretty good and did not deserve to lose, but the Lino also missed one from him in the first half, which luckily was saved.

I think common sense tells us that had Moore not touched it he wouldn’t of been flagged offside anyway because the Lino hasn’t 8 eyes for a start,end of the day it is what it is and you get some and some you won’t,of course we could have VAR in the championship and spoil what was a good game by constantly reviewing things 

[WessexPest]

Nope, he wasn’t offside and the goal was perfectly legitimate sadly. We may not like it but the rule change is unambiguous on this point:-

Previously, an attacking player who was in an offside position at the time that the ball was played by a teammate, could be penalized and ruled offside when the ball was deflected by or rebounded from a defender to the attacking player even though the defender tried to play the ball. The new rule changes this situation as the attacking player in an offside position when the ball was kicked by a teammate who gets a rebounded or deflected ball after it was deliberately played by the opponent (except from a deliberate save), is no longer offside and is not considered to have gained an advantage.

One example of the rule change would be if an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position (behind the defender) and the defender jumps to head the ball. The ball hits the defender’s head but he/she does not control it. The ball continues to the attacking player who was originally in the offside position. With this rule change the attacking player is no longer considered offside since the defender deliberately tried to play the ball.

Another example would be when an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position. The defender attempts to kick the ball to clear it away, but miss kicks the ball and it continues forward to the attacker who was initially in the offside position. The attacker receives the ball. This is legal since the offside was negated when the defender miss kicked the ball.

Officials must be in good position and recognize the rule change whenever an offside infringement may occur. In the dual system of officiating the lead referee must be even with the second to the last defender to observe the play as it develops. In a diagonal system of control, the assistant referee must be even with the second to the last defender to properly observe the play and if necessary signal for the offside. Once the lead official or assistant referee is in the proper position, the official must determine if there is an offside position , offside infringement or the offside has been eliminated by the above described rule change. The best mechanic when this situation occurs is to delay the decision for a moment to observe what happens next. The lead official or assistant referee must not indicate offside as soon as the ball is played. Note: this was what was previously taught. The lead official or assistant referee must wait to determine if a defender attempts to play the ball and it continues to the attacker in the offside position. If this occurs the play should continue and no offside indicated. By delaying the decision the official is able to make the proper call. If the lead official or assistant referee signaled too early, a potential scoring opportunity may be whistled dead. A good rule of thumb is better to be late and accurate with the call than early and wrong.

 

 

[Super]

Same people moaning are same ones who moan about VAR. It happens move on.

[cityexile]

6 minutes ago, WessexPest said:

Nope, he wasn’t offside and the goal was perfectly legitimate sadly. We may not like it but the rule change is unambiguous on this point:-

Previously, an attacking player who was in an offside position at the time that the ball was played by a teammate, could be penalized and ruled offside when the ball was deflected by or rebounded from a defender to the attacking player even though the defender tried to play the ball. The new rule changes this situation as the attacking player in an offside position when the ball was kicked by a teammate who gets a rebounded or deflected ball after it was deliberately played by the opponent (except from a deliberate save), is no longer offside and is not considered to have gained an advantage.

One example of the rule change would be if an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position (behind the defender) and the defender jumps to head the ball. The ball hits the defender’s head but he/she does not control it. The ball continues to the attacking player who was originally in the offside position. With this rule change the attacking player is no longer considered offside since the defender deliberately tried to play the ball.

Another example would be when an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position. The defender attempts to kick the ball to clear it away, but miss kicks the ball and it continues forward to the attacker who was initially in the offside position. The attacker receives the ball. This is legal since the offside was negated when the defender miss kicked the ball.

Officials must be in good position and recognize the rule change whenever an offside infringement may occur. In the dual system of officiating the lead referee must be even with the second to the last defender to observe the play as it develops. In a diagonal system of control, the assistant referee must be even with the second to the last defender to properly observe the play and if necessary signal for the offside. Once the lead official or assistant referee is in the proper position, the official must determine if there is an offside position , offside infringement or the offside has been eliminated by the above described rule change. The best mechanic when this situation occurs is to delay the decision for a moment to observe what happens next. The lead official or assistant referee must not indicate offside as soon as the ball is played. Note: this was what was previously taught. The lead official or assistant referee must wait to determine if a defender attempts to play the ball and it continues to the attacker in the offside position. If this occurs the play should continue and no offside indicated. By delaying the decision the official is able to make the proper call. If the lead official or assistant referee signaled too early, a potential scoring opportunity may be whistled dead. A good rule of thumb is better to be late and accurate with the call than early and wrong.

 

 

But what if I don’t like that! Meh. Clear I suppose. It is what it is. Boro well worth something in fairness.

[Stortz]

5 minutes ago, WessexPest said:

Nope, he wasn’t offside and the goal was perfectly legitimate sadly. We may not like it but the rule change is unambiguous on this point:-

Previously, an attacking player who was in an offside position at the time that the ball was played by a teammate, could be penalized and ruled offside when the ball was deflected by or rebounded from a defender to the attacking player even though the defender tried to play the ball. The new rule changes this situation as the attacking player in an offside position when the ball was kicked by a teammate who gets a rebounded or deflected ball after it was deliberately played by the opponent (except from a deliberate save), is no longer offside and is not considered to have gained an advantage.

One example of the rule change would be if an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position (behind the defender) and the defender jumps to head the ball. The ball hits the defender’s head but he/she does not control it. The ball continues to the attacking player who was originally in the offside position. With this rule change the attacking player is no longer considered offside since the defender deliberately tried to play the ball.

Another example would be when an attacking player plays the ball toward a teammate who is in an offside position. The defender attempts to kick the ball to clear it away, but miss kicks the ball and it continues forward to the attacker who was initially in the offside position. The attacker receives the ball. This is legal since the offside was negated when the defender miss kicked the ball.

Officials must be in good position and recognize the rule change whenever an offside infringement may occur. In the dual system of officiating the lead referee must be even with the second to the last defender to observe the play as it develops. In a diagonal system of control, the assistant referee must be even with the second to the last defender to properly observe the play and if necessary signal for the offside. Once the lead official or assistant referee is in the proper position, the official must determine if there is an offside position , offside infringement or the offside has been eliminated by the above described rule change. The best mechanic when this situation occurs is to delay the decision for a moment to observe what happens next. The lead official or assistant referee must not indicate offside as soon as the ball is played. Note: this was what was previously taught. The lead official or assistant referee must wait to determine if a defender attempts to play the ball and it continues to the attacker in the offside position. If this occurs the play should continue and no offside indicated. By delaying the decision the official is able to make the proper call. If the lead official or assistant referee signaled too early, a potential scoring opportunity may be whistled dead. A good rule of thumb is better to be late and accurate with the call than early and wrong.

 

 

Where is this from mate? It's terribly written!

5 minutes ago, Super said:

Same people moaning are same ones who moan about VAR. It happens move on.

People are discussing controversial refereeing decisions against Bristol City on a Bristol City forum!

[cidercity1987]

Moore only played it to try and stop the ball getting to Assombalonga. Clearly interfering with play to anyone with one inkling of the point of football

[Alex_BCFC]

It’s quite tight - not really going to moan too much about that. Overall fair result. 

[cityexile]

13 minutes ago, cidercity1987 said:

Moore only played it to try and stop the ball getting to Assombalonga. Clearly interfering with play to anyone with one inkling of the point of football

I entirely agree, but after having a good look around to prove the decision was wrong because it feels wrong and I like being ‘robbed’, it is clear the decision is right.

The new law comes down to whether it was simply a deflection off Moore, or whether he deliberately played the ball. I would have to say it was the latter.

It feels all wrong, but that is the law now. God knows why it needed changing and seems to build in some randomness, but there you go. If Moore had ducked under it, it should then have been given.

[Redwhitepurple]

They are only dollowing orders. Fifa. Blame them

[Stortz]

2 minutes ago, Redwhitepurple said:

They are only dollowing orders. Fifa. Blame them

IFAB change the rules of the game, not FIFA.

[BCFC Rich]

52 minutes ago, Stortz said:

Clearly offside.

Haha, I thought he was definitely in an offside position but wasn't sure abut whether Moore's touch played him on. But looking at that picture it was actually a lot tighter that I thought from the watching. Ifyou use the grass lines as a guide and draw an imaginary line from Assombalonga to Rowe(?) he is only marginally off.