Offside goals

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Portland Bill said:

Your correct, as soon as an attacking player makes a run towards the ball, he becomes ‘active’. 

Wrong.

He should be, but isn't in accordance with Law 11.

Moving in any direction doesn't make or negate one from being active (hence the pointless way Static regularly puts his arms in the air as if to declare himself inactive when caught offside.) The degree of 'activeness' relates to the relative position of player to opponent(s), ball and whether or not he's gained (or sought to gain) an UNFAIR advantage. Like offside, a player may lawfully gain an advantage when inactive in an offside position if such advantage is adjudged accidental. In yesterday's case the official likely adjudged Hunt should have controlled or cleared the ball.

 

[dunsteral]

Offside causes more problems than any other rule in the book.  Get rid of it altogether  then there is no problem.

I will get my coat.

[Coxy27]

9 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Wrong.

He should be, but isn't in accordance with Law 11.

Moving in any direction doesn't make or negate one from being active (hence the pointless way Static regularly puts his arms in the air as if to declare himself inactive when caught offside.) The degree of 'activeness' relates to the relative position of player to opponent(s), ball and whether or not he's gained (or sought to gain) an UNFAIR advantage. Like offside, a player may lawfully gain an advantage when inactive in an offside position if such advantage is adjudged accidental. In yesterday's case the official likely adjudged Hunt should have controlled or cleared the ball.

 

So the Brentford player would have been judged to have been inactive then and accidentally gained an advantage from Hunt's poor play, despite the fact he was clearly running down the pitch after his own goalie's clearance? - If so, the rule seems ridiculous.

[BTRFTG]

11 minutes ago, Coxy27 said:

So the Brentford player would have been judged to have been inactive then and accidentally gained an advantage from Hunt's poor play, despite the fact he was clearly running down the pitch after his own goalie's clearance? - If so, the rule seems ridiculous.

Assuming he wasn't onside when the ball was punted forward that appears to be so. As somebody else pointed out, 2nd time it's happened to us at home this season.

[Wrongagain]

3 hours ago, Lez said:

Forst one wasnt offside as came off hunt foot.

The long pass that lead to the goal was the offside, player at least 4 yards off, linos attention was elsewhere and he was scrabbling to catch up with play, useless streak of**** same as last time he was here, was right up with Korey getting elbowed and no reaction at all!

[Mr Popodopolous]

Coming back from an offside position- active, inactive, phases all that?

Unsure I see that it's offside under the current version of the rules.

[Lez]

25 minutes ago, dave36 said:

The long pass that lead to the goal was the offside, player at least 4 yards off, linos attention was elsewhere and he was scrabbling to catch up with play, useless streak of**** same as last time he was here, was right up with Korey getting elbowed and no reaction at all!

Yes but he wasnt interfering with play he only becomes relevant once hunt touches the ball to him. Lino was right.

3 hours ago, GTFABM said:

Not sure thats how it would work. If he was offside when initial ball was played and hunt went for it and touched it. Thats still offside regardless of hunt touching it? Or have i got that completely wrong?

 

Got it wrong. Similar to assombalonga v boro earlier in season when Moore head it.

[Guest]

Surely he has put some sort of pressure on Hunt to play it and became active before Hunt touched it, hes running yards in front of him. Hunt obviously doesn't know he was offside therefore he cannot take the risk of leaving it, or chancing the lino getting the decision correct.

Letter of the law I get it, but surely it needs changing.

[GTFABM]

2 hours ago, Lez said:

Yes but he wasnt interfering with play he only becomes relevant once hunt touches the ball to him. Lino was right.

Got it wrong. Similar to assombalonga v boro earlier in season when Moore head it.

Well you learn something new every day. Cheers for that

[Red-Robbo]

5 hours ago, handballbygordonparr said:

I've just re-run the highlights on Quest. The first is a long ball over the top from the keeper and the camera doesn't show the players when the ball is played.

It does look like Hunt stretched out a leg and may have touched it though. The real problem here has been evident for a number of weeks now, we just don't seam to be able to deal with long punt over the top. It doesn't help when Hunt falls on his ass trying to defend.

 

It was even worse than that. The ball became tangled in his legs and he then duly released it to cue up the Brentford guy.

He also, as has been noted, made glancing contact with the goal kick to play Mbuemo (sp?) onside.

A bit of an utter 'mare for JH that goal and that game generally.

[hertsexile]

As George Best once said if you are the pitch you are interfering with play. Watkins was offside when the ball was played! So offside before hunt touches the ball ! 

There is a grey area here which linesman are not sure about. When a player  comes back into on on side from an offside position & touches the ball the linesman puts his flag up. Like Andres Weimann goal via Villa last season. The problem is the lack of understanding and interpretation of the rule it’s self 

[GTFABM]

1 hour ago, wood_red said:

Surely he has put some sort of pressure on Hunt to play it and became active before Hunt touched it, hes running yards in front of him. Hunt obviously doesn't know he was offside therefore he cannot take the risk of leaving it, or chancing the lino getting the decision correct.

Letter of the law I get it, but surely it needs changing.

Thats why i thought that couldn’t be correct. Saying that i still don’t want VAR amywhere near the championship. Some of the decisions have been rediculous recently. A boot lace offside or a shoulder

[Lez]

1 hour ago, GTFABM said:

Thats why i thought that couldn’t be correct. Saying that i still don’t want VAR amywhere near the championship. Some of the decisions have been rediculous recently. A boot lace offside or a shoulder

I think it's to do with phases of the play. Once hunt touched the ball it was another phase in which Watkins becomes interfering. The initial phase he wasnt. I think.....

[CarlBCFC]

1 hour ago, Lez said:

I think it's to do with phases of the play. Once hunt touched the ball it was another phase in which Watkins becomes interfering. The initial phase he wasnt. I think.....

That's pretty much it, Hunt has deliberately tried to play the ball so therefore Watkins isn't committing an offence once the ball gets to him.

 

[Simon79]

6 hours ago, Coxy27 said:

So the Brentford player would have been judged to have been inactive then and accidentally gained an advantage from Hunt's poor play, despite the fact he was clearly running down the pitch after his own goalie's clearance? - If so, the rule seems ridiculous.

It is ridiculous, it happened earlier in the season against Middlesbrough I think. Think it was Moore stretching to head it, as he wasn’t sure if the striker was on or not. Needs changing ASAP. COYR 

[MelksRed]

9 hours ago, 1960maaan said:

If he was offside it’s when the ball was kicked, as soon as he goes to chase it he should be flaggged. From my seat he looked 3/4 yards off. Problem was the Lino was further behind play than the test of our defence.

He certainly looked like he had a good Christmas!!!

[BTRFTG]

6 hours ago, hertsexile said:

The problem is the lack of understanding and interpretation of the rule it’s self 

Generally the only people having an issue understanding Law 11 are the fans and the fact they do not understand that being in an offside position is not in of itself an offence. Like the pointless derision of officials when a free kick is given for offside in one's own half. "You don't know what you're doing..." Well actually he does.....

[BCFC11]

14 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Wrong.

He should be, but isn't in accordance with Law 11.

Moving in any direction doesn't make or negate one from being active (hence the pointless way Static regularly puts his arms in the air as if to declare himself inactive when caught offside.) The degree of 'activeness' relates to the relative position of player to opponent(s), ball and whether or not he's gained (or sought to gain) an UNFAIR advantage. Like offside, a player may lawfully gain an advantage when inactive in an offside position if such advantage is adjudged accidental. In yesterday's case the official likely adjudged Hunt should have controlled or cleared the ball.

 

I’m unsure nowadays re the offside law as the braindead people who decide and keep changing rules continue to ruin football, as someone once said ‘if he’s not interfering with play, then what’s he doing on the pitch?’

Clearly in Brentford’s 1st goal and Assombalonga’s earlier on this season, the initial passes are intended for the players in question, so how their in their latest shite offside rule they are not deemed inactive is ridiculous.

[BTRFTG]

4 hours ago, BCFC11 said:

I’m unsure nowadays re the offside law as the braindead people who decide and keep changing rules continue to ruin football, as someone once said ‘if he’s not interfering with play, then what’s he doing on the pitch?’

Clearly in Brentford’s 1st goal and Assombalonga’s earlier on this season, the initial passes are intended for the players in question, so how their in their latest shite offside rule they are not deemed inactive is ridiculous.

Law 11 was rewritten to promote attacking football, favour the attacking side and increase the number of goals scored. All positive save, if like us, you've no strikers or attacking options on the park.

Of course where VAR's been introduced all the positives have been negated.