Jump to content
IGNORED

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


Numero Uno

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Robin1988 said:

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

Active / inactive isn’t a thing. I think fans getting caught up in cliches and the like that they hear and think that’s the rule.

its only an offence when he plays the ball, makes a direct movement close to the ball (which is debatable here I guess but it wouldn’t be offside if TMs header goes anywhere else) or challenges an opponent for the ball.

I doubt there will be an apology considering every pundit after the game agreed with the decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

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

Unfortunately the view isn’t shared by the laws:

  • A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

I’m as annoyed as everyone else about it and personally think if you affect a player’s judgement to play the ball - ie TM has to head the ball because he knows a striker is behind him then it should be offside, but that’s just not in the laws as LJ said in his interview.

as for the photo and whether he was beyond Rowe I think his feet are close but his knee / upper torso is beyond the defensive line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MarcusX said:

Unfortunately the view isn’t shared by the laws:

  • A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

I’m as annoyed as everyone else about it and personally think if you affect a player’s judgement to play the ball - ie TM has to head the ball because he knows a striker is behind him then it should be offside, but that’s just not in the laws as LJ said in his interview.

as for the photo and whether he was beyond Rowe I think his feet are close but his knee / upper torso is beyond the defensive line

Yeah fair enough to the letter of the law, but I’d change it. If you gain an advantage by being in an offside position, you’re offside.

A few years ago there was a “PIG” directive (or at least guidance of some sort) - you were offside if you PLAYED the ball, or INTERFERED with play, or GAINED an advantage by being there. Not sure what happened to that but it made a lot of sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, City exile 79 said:

My view. He was offside when ball was played. Ball was played towards him. Flag should have gone up straight away. 

 

35 minutes ago, RedEyez said:

It’s 100% offside.

Whilst we want it to be 100% offside, under the new rules it’s 100% onside and is a perfectly legitimate goal. 

Not sure why we were playing such a high line - Assombalonga was working on the shoulder of the last man all day and we got away with a couple. We played to his strengths here. You don’t offer Assombalonga 40 yards of space to run into. He’s the type of striker for whom you stifle the space and make him play in tight areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Harry said:

 

Whilst we want it to be 100% offside, under the new rules it’s 100% onside and is a perfectly legitimate goal. 

Not sure why we were playing such a high line - Assombalonga was working on the shoulder of the last man all day and we got away with a couple. We played to his strengths here. You don’t offer Assombalonga 40 yards of space to run into. He’s the type of striker for whom you stifle the space and make him play in tight areas. 

Nailed :thumbsup:

Certainly in that goal , if you look back at the still someone put in this thread , IMHO our line is far too high for the position of the ball , leaving BA acres behind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Frenchay Red said:

If I'm understanding this change to the offside rule correctly, it seems that you can now have a player waiting around the opposition penalty area, and providing team mate can get the ball to them via a deflection off of a defender, then they're onside?

Think the contact from the defender has to be deliberate Frenchay , rather than a deflection 

It’s a nonsense full stop

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven’t read all the posts...So am I correct in saying that if Taylor Moore left it, he would of been offside?So defenders in the situation of not being sure if someone is offside & knowing they are stretching, have a decision to make whether to go for the ball or not?  What is the reason behind this new rule? Totally baffled by this. COYR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Simon79 said:

Haven’t read all the posts...So am I correct in saying that if Taylor Moore left it, he would of been offside?So defenders in the situation of not being sure if someone is offside & knowing they are stretching, have a decision to make whether to go for the ball or not?  What is the reason behind this new rule? Totally baffled by this. COYR

It’s not even a “new” rule it’s been like this for at least a few seasons I think, you are correct though if TM leaves it then he’s offside - which of course is stupid, and I agree with the people who think this SHOULD be offside it’s just that by the letter of the law it’s not.

Harry nailed it though, ultimately the line is too high and it’s poor positioning for the header

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a rubbish aspect of the offside law for the particular context we saw yesterday. In that situation, if the defender leaves the ball deliberately, he has to assume that the assistant referee is going to flag the attacker for offside. However given yesterday’s evidence that’s an extremely risky policy. So not unreasonably the defender tries to play the ball to stop it getting to the attacker. If he clears, that’s fine. If he doesn’t and the attacker gets the ball off the defender, it’s now onside.

The problem is that it seems against the spirit of the offside rule. The attacker is deliberately seeking an advantage and influencing play by being beyond the last defender. If he wasn’t there, there would be no need for the defender to play the ball in the first place. And that’s what many have found extremely frustrating, especially considering how many incorrect offside decisions have been given in the past season against our attackers, which have significantly influenced games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's bad enough as it is, but how on earth am I going to try and explain this one to my Mrs?

 

My view? The lino missed it, I don't think he took time to consider all the possibilities listed above.  I think if he would have flagged there wouldn't have been any complaints from Boro.  Fair play to them for coming here and making a game of it. ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies if this has already been done to death on another post and the decision has been made so a moot point, but I wanted to be sure I got this right...... and it’s been debated on various forums and on Quest on Saturday.........

Assombalonga was definitely in an offside position when the ball was kicked forward to him by a Boro player. If Moore had left the ball and BA touched it, BA would have been given offside and that would have been the end of it. However, he (Moore) headed the ball (albeit not where he intended to) and played BA back onside, hence no offside and the goal was given. 

The area for debate for me is the interpretation of the ‘interfering with play’ label. Was BA interfering with play whilst making his original run? Did Moore only try and cut the ball out because he know BA was there ready to receive? Boro certainly intended the ball to get to him (BA) and the ball was headed towards him, so Moore reacted to that move - thus BA most certainly WAS interfering with play and should have been given offside. I’ve tried to be unbiased but that is my considered opinion - or did Moore’s touch invalidate any ‘interfering with play’ situation? I don’t think it should, because you see it time and time on the goal line where a player is offside when a shot is blocked and the follow-up tap-in ‘goal’ disallowed for offside as the offside player was deemed to be interfering with play. 

Verdict: open to interpretation by the officials - who got it wrong this time imho. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, bcfcredandwhite said:

Apologies if this has already been done to death on another post and the decision has been made so a moot point, but I wanted to be sure I got this right...... and it’s been debated on various forums and on Quest on Saturday.........

Assombalonga was definitely in an offside position when the ball was kicked forward to him by a Boro player. If Moore had left the ball and BA touched it, BA would have been given offside and that would have been the end of it. However, he (Moore) headed the ball (albeit not where he intended to) and played BA back onside, hence no offside and the goal was given. 

The area for debate for me is the interpretation of the ‘interfering with play’ label. Was BA interfering with play whilst making his original run? Did Moore only try and cut the ball out because he know BA was there ready to receive? Boro certainly intended the ball to get to him (BA) and the ball was headed towards him, so Moore reacted to that move - thus BA most certainly WAS interfering with play and should have been given offside. I’ve tried to be unbiased but that is my considered opinion - or did Moore’s touch invalidate any ‘interfering with play’ situation? I don’t think it should, because you see it time and time on the goal line where a player is offside when a shot is blocked and the follow-up tap-in ‘goal’ disallowed for offside as the offside player was deemed to be interfering with play. 

Verdict: open to interpretation by the officials - who got it wrong this time imho. 

Take a close look at our equaliser. As Rowe heads into the net, Semenyo is offside and directly in line with the keepers view of the ball. He was interfering. BAs goal was good for me for all the reasons already stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, The Horse With No Name said:

Take a close look at our equaliser. As Rowe heads into the net, Semenyo is offside and directly in line with the keepers view of the ball. He was interfering. BAs goal was good for me for all the reasons already stated.

He's onside. See the picture below (in true VAR fashion) - the defender's back foot is playing him onside. 

boro2.png

boro.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the law, as it appears to stand, was designed to accommodate a defender playing the ball to another defender or back to the keeper, but is unaware of an attacker , standing in what would otherwise be an offside position, who intercepts and scores.

In those cases I can happily accept that the "deliberate" action of the defender plays the attacker onside.

In this case however, BA was interfering with play at the point the ball was played up to him and his presence caused Moore's deliberate reaction, which is different to a deliberate action ( in my opinion). In this situation I don;t see how Moore can be judged to have played BA onside. 

If the decision on Saturday is because the laws say that TM played BA onside, then it flies contrary to the farcical way that VAR goes back to determine whether anything happened in an earlier phase of play to disallow a goal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Wouldn't it make life easier (and be fairer) if there had to be daylight between the player deemed offside and the second last defender?  

They'd have fun with night games then! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...