Linesman

[The Man In Black]

Took a very inventive google search to find this thread! (Namely 'site:www.otib.co.uk edson man in black offside')

So, anyway, watched the Championship this morning and thought of this thread when I watched Wolves' second goal against Coventry yesterday. Just to recap on what UEFA said about a defender making a tackle and sliding off the field of play:

http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/news/kind=1/n...h+goal+decision

"The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law.....

....If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second-last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position....

....This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law among referees that is not generally known by the wider football public"

For those that haven't seen it, Ebanks-Blake attempted to centre the ball and his momentum made him fall off the pitch, a Wolves player hit the ball towards the goal and the keeper parried it, unfortunately towards Ebanks-Blake who had just scrambled back onto the pitch leaving him to tap the ball into the net.

As you can imagine, Coleman wasn't too pleased:

"The referee is saying the momentum takes Ebanks-Blake off the pitch so when he re-enters he is not offside. If he is offside then he is offside - end of story," said Coleman.

"He comes on behind our defender and nods the ball in the back of the net. If he comes back onto the pitch then he has surely got to come back on in an onside position.

"I don't know where that rule came from, apparently that's the rule and the referee is sticking to it. We're disappointed with that.

"I'm not saying the referee has got it wrong, I'm saying whoever made the rule up has got it wrong. That's a ridiculous rule."

As you can imagine, McCarthy saw it in rather a different light:

"Sylvan actually ran off the pitch and you're not offside if you fall off. You're not seeking to gain an advantage by staying off the pitch, if that's the rule then he's not offside," said the Wolves boss.

Interesting one, and I think the ref definitely got it wrong on this one. I think that it's fairly obvious that he was still active and gained an advantage by the fact he ran from behind the defender and goalkeeper to score.

[Portland Bill]

Took a very inventive google search to find this thread! (Namely 'site:www.otib.co.uk edson man in black offside')

So, anyway, watched the Championship this morning and thought of this thread when I watched Wolves' second goal against Coventry yesterday. Just to recap on what UEFA said about a defender making a tackle and sliding off the field of play:

http://www.euro2008.uefa.com/news/kind=1/n...h+goal+decision

For those that haven't seen it, Ebanks-Blake attempted to centre the ball and his momentum made him fall off the pitch, a Wolves player hit the ball towards the goal and the keeper parried it, unfortunately towards Ebanks-Blake who had just scrambled back onto the pitch leaving him to tap the ball into the net.

As you can imagine, Coleman wasn't too pleased:

As you can imagine, McCarthy saw it in rather a different light:

Interesting one, and I think the ref definitely got it wrong on this one. I think that it's fairly obvious that he was still active and gained an advantage by the fact he ran from behind the defender and goalkeeper to score.

I could not believe that the Wolves goal was given, what they are basically saying is that ANYONE can stand OFF the pitch behind the goal line and come back on when the time suits the player to do it.

I know this is taking it to the extreme, but by the officials allowing the goal to stand they are actualy saying its ok to do this.

[italian dave]

I had always believed (and I may be wrong, cos I've learnt several things on his thread so far!) that the way the officials dealt with the Wolves goal situation was not by using the offside law, but by using the laws about laving and re-entering the field of play.

If the player is claiming not to be offside, and not interfering, because he has left the pitch then he should have had the official's permission to leave the field, and also to return. The goal sould therefore be disallowed because the player should not be on the pitch.

[The Man In Black]

If your momentum takes you off the pitch there's no reasonable reason for the official to wave you back on. It's more to stop players randomly disappearing and then reappearing from the field of play (you have to remember that some laws are made to help refs in the lower leagues where he doesn't have assistants to help him keep tabs on the players!)

Therefore, if their momentum takes them off the field I would want to class them as still involved in play. I can't see how a player running from behind the goalkeeper to take advantage of a parried ball into his path cannot be seen as offside.

In this case, I think that the ref and assistant completely cocked up.

[SimplyRed]

I haven't seen the clip, so I can't really comment one way or the other, but here's something to throw into the mix.

If the attacker goes off over the goal line, the referee usually assumes he is not active and thus cannot be offside. If he comes back on the pitch behind the second last defender and receives a forward pass from a teammate then he would be offside - thus the reason why slowly-returning forwards ignore long balls over the defence when they're trying to get back.

However, not having seen the clip, perhaps someone can answer where the attacker was when the ball was LAST PLAYED forward by a teammate. If he was off the pitch when a member of his team struck the ball forward towards the keeper, then he cannot be offside if he then comes on to the pitch when the ball is parried into his path by the keeper.

A bit of a dodgy interpretation, but by the letter of the law - it is where you are when the ball was LAST PLAYED by a teammate that counts in considering whether an offside offence has been committed.

Just a thought... :-)

[Seend Red]

I haven't seen the clip, so I can't really comment one way or the other, but here's something to throw into the mix.

If the attacker goes off over the goal line, the referee usually assumes he is not active and thus cannot be offside. If he comes back on the pitch behind the second last defender and receives a forward pass from a teammate then he would be offside - thus the reason why slowly-returning forwards ignore long balls over the defence when they're trying to get back.

However, not having seen the clip, perhaps someone can answer where the attacker was when the ball was LAST PLAYED forward by a teammate. If he was off the pitch when a member of his team struck the ball forward towards the keeper, then he cannot be offside if he then comes on to the pitch when the ball is parried into his path by the keeper.

A bit of a dodgy interpretation, but by the letter of the law - it is where you are when the ball was LAST PLAYED by a teammate that counts in considering whether an offside offence has been committed.

Just a thought... :-)

Surely the bottom line is if you gain an unfair avantage from being off the pitch and then re-entering the playing area from an off side position the flag should go up .

I have seen the clip and can't believe the lino didn't flag! Madness.

[The Man In Black]

Yes, I believe that if you use the words "gains an advantage" by being in that position it could help make it a bit easier. If you were slowly walking back onside and your team mate slams the ball towards the goal you can be inactive.

However, the second the goalkeeper parries the ball and you turn to hit the rebound you 'gain an advantage' from that position and become active and offside.

Therefore, as he went off the field of play he was inactive, but he ran back on to take advantage of his position so should have been offside.

Of course, none of this still doesn't explain why UEFA ruled Holland's goal as onside but this one is classed slightly differently......