Maynard's Second

[steviestevieneville]

No, it wasn't a women, just a very weedy looking bloke

Really ? well he fooled me. Not difficult mind.

[Garland-sweden]

Never mind. We dont want Nicky getting too many before the summer do we.

No.

[SC_Red]

Looks to me that his head may just have been that tiny bit ahead of the last defender- hence offside. Like when Quagriella had a goal disallowed in WC for offside.

I dont see how anyone can say from that still photo that he was definately onside.

any part of the body that you can legally play with the ball with is active for offsides so as you say it makes no odds where his feet are if his head or shoulder are ahead of the defender.

a linesman sees it once at full speed yet here is a still photo and its not clear yet people are criticising the lino.

[ashbrisc11]

i was in line on the dolman and when pitman hit the ball,his right foot was infront of the last defender he was offside but ONLY JUST perfect decision to the lino to be fair mind!well played son!i shouted before the free kick was taken though "for **** sake nicky get onside" he and clarkson always stand offside froms et pieces and it's a gutter tbf! but anyway we won KEITH MILLENS CIDER ARMY

[redsince1994]

Shocking decision - but then all three officials made consistently inconsistent decisons all game (If you get what I mean!).

The incident that led to that free kick, I think, was the one where the Burneley defender deliberately impeded Pitman who'd knocked te ball past him. Can anyone tell me what was the difference between that and the one 10 mins earlier when Damien Stewart blocked their guy. Apart from the fact that one resulted in a booking and the other didn't.

He did get a yellow but should have been red, blatant elbow.

[Nibor]

have you ever run the line at a game?

Yes, why?

[SC_Red]

Yes, why?

just surprised your making an issue of such a close call if you've done it yourself and know how hard it is

[Nibor]

just surprised your making an issue of such a close call if you've done it yourself and know how hard it is

I'm not really making an issue out of it but I don't think it is that hard from a set piece. You have time to make sure you're in line and have the right view. Much, much harder from open play.

Anyway, if there was doubt the goal should have been given shouldn't it?

[SC_Red]

I'm not really making an issue out of it but I don't think it is that hard from a set piece. You have time to make sure you're in line and have the right view. Much, much harder from open play.

Anyway, if there was doubt the goal should have been given shouldn't it?

by issue I meant topic.

maybe there wasnt any doubt. Maybe the lino was sure?

[Nibor]

by issue I meant topic.

maybe there wasnt any doubt. Maybe the lino was sure?

Seems rather unlikely to me if it's a close call as you suggested?

[SC_Red]

Seems rather unlikely to me if it's a close call as you suggested?

you dont have to be right to be sure. Ask the linesman who gave the Liverpool pen at the weekend or the lino in the rugby who said Wales used the same ball

[Nibor]

you dont have to be right to be sure. Ask the linesman who gave the Liverpool pen at the weekend or the lino in the rugby who said Wales used the same ball

I know, but it seems unlikely that someone would be completely sure of what you say is a close call. That's what I mean about the psychology of it above. I think it's the "do no harm" default option if you're not sure that defeats the idea of giving the attacker advantage.

I would prefer the rule was that you're not offside unless there is daylight between you and the last man, but with any doubt in favour of the defender. I think that way you'd get more accurate decisions at the same time as making the offside trap (which is shit to watch) much less attractive as a tactic.

[SC_Red]

I know, but it seems unlikely that someone would be completely sure of what you say is a close call. That's what I mean about the psychology of it above. I think it's the "do no harm" default option if you're not sure that defeats the idea of giving the attacker advantage.

I would prefer the rule was that you're not offside unless there is daylight between you and the last man, but with any doubt in favour of the defender. I think that way you'd get more accurate decisions at the same time as making the offside trap (which is shit to watch) much less attractive as a tactic.

I think you just give what you think you see. It happens fast so sometimes its right and sometimes its wrong. As long as its honest I dont really mind. Mistakes happen.

The trouble with any doubt going in favour of the defender is managers wont accept it. They dont accept doubt. they want 100% accuracy 100% of the time and thats impossible so they will always slag linesman and refs off regardless of whether daylight is allowed or whatever. They'd just argue there was or wasnt daylight to suit their arguement.

the one you highlighted here is a good example. its very close. If it was or wasnt given I would have to say it was a fair decision given in an instant. If we were a Prem team they'd of looked at it from 14 angles and told us the lino got it right or wrong. Completely over looking the fact the poor guy has to make the decision as he sees it with no replays. Its totally unfair on them

I think the laws as they stand are sound. I think the problem is the general lack of respect for officials and there decisions which has become acceptable in the game.

[Nibor]

I think you just give what you think you see. It happens fast so sometimes its right and sometimes its wrong. As long as its honest I dont really mind. Mistakes happen.

I agree, that's why I haven't criticised the officials once in this thread despite the decision being wrong. But why not make some changes to the rules that make it more likely for those initial reactions to be right?

The trouble with any doubt going in favour of the defender is managers wont accept it. They dont accept doubt. they want 100% accuracy 100% of the time and thats impossible so they will always slag linesman and refs off regardless of whether daylight is allowed or whatever. They'd just argue there was or wasnt daylight to suit their arguement.

the one you highlighted here is a good example. its very close. If it was or wasnt given I would have to say it was a fair decision given in an instant. If we were a Prem team they'd of looked at it from 14 angles and told us the lino got it right or wrong. Completely over looking the fact the poor guy has to make the decision as he sees it with no replays. Its totally unfair on them

I think the laws as they stand are sound. I think the problem is the general lack of respect for officials and there decisions which has become acceptable in the game.

I don't agree with you on managers, whilst some of them are complete cocks (sadly the few you hear the most from) I think on the whole they are fairly accepting of mistakes, but they're not very accepting of inconsistency. This isn't that surprising because inconsistency feels like injustice.

I think inconsistency happens because rules or directions are overly complicated or just lack common sense.

Mandatory bookings for kicking the ball away or pulling your shirt over your head to celebrate, or having to leave the field and come back on if you're injured are plain stupid. Nobody wants to see those ones enforced which means they aren't always.

The new directions on when players are active and phases of play around offside are too complex for consistent decisions and even if decisions were consistent they aren't consistently understood by players, managers and fans.

The disrespect towards referees stems I think from the increased pressure managers are under and hence frustration at inconsistency. We had instant replays 40 years ago, they're not the cause of it. There are a number of things that can be done to tackle it.

1) Changing the rules or guidance (primarily about offside, preventing goalscoring chances and what is considered excessive in a tackle which I think are the main contentious points) where it's possible to make them easier for managers, dumbass pundits, players and fans to understand, and more importantly easier for officials to enforce and get right first time.

2) Remove some of the clutter from the rules that detracts from the game like the ones mentioned above that are fairly universally despised.

3) Make it an offence punishable by booking for a player other than the captain to address any official without first being asked a question, or for any player to address an official as anything other than "sir". If we have to have junior school level discipline then lets have junior school measures eh?

4) Use retrospective video evidence used to punish any form of cheating (diving, faking, off the ball incidents) severely - ie 10 game bans - so that the risk vs reward for cheating is not worth it.

5) Fine anybody employed by a football club 3 months salary for saying or doing anything or by omission implying that an official was in some way biased or not giving of their best.

If we did those I think officials would have an easier time of it, there'd be less inconsistency and the game would be more fun to watch and play.

[Economou]

A good old fashioned debate, keep it going chaps.

[SC_Red]

I agree, that's why I haven't criticised the officials once in this thread despite the decision being wrong. But why not make some changes to the rules that make it more likely for those initial reactions to be right?

I don't agree with you on managers, whilst some of them are complete cocks (sadly the few you hear the most from) I think on the whole they are fairly accepting of mistakes, but they're not very accepting of inconsistency. This isn't that surprising because inconsistency feels like injustice.

I think inconsistency happens because rules or directions are overly complicated or just lack common sense.

Mandatory bookings for kicking the ball away or pulling your shirt over your head to celebrate, or having to leave the field and come back on if you're injured are plain stupid. Nobody wants to see those ones enforced which means they aren't always.

The new directions on when players are active and phases of play around offside are too complex for consistent decisions and even if decisions were consistent they aren't consistently understood by players, managers and fans.

The disrespect towards referees stems I think from the increased pressure managers are under and hence frustration at inconsistency. We had instant replays 40 years ago, they're not the cause of it. There are a number of things that can be done to tackle it.

1) Changing the rules or guidance (primarily about offside, preventing goalscoring chances and what is considered excessive in a tackle which I think are the main contentious points) where it's possible to make them easier for managers, dumbass pundits, players and fans to understand, and more importantly easier for officials to enforce and get right first time.

2) Remove some of the clutter from the rules that detracts from the game like the ones mentioned above that are fairly universally despised.

3) Make it an offence punishable by booking for a player other than the captain to address any official without first being asked a question, or for any player to address an official as anything other than "sir". If we have to have junior school level discipline then lets have junior school measures eh?

4) Use retrospective video evidence used to punish any form of cheating (diving, faking, off the ball incidents) severely - ie 10 game bans - so that the risk vs reward for cheating is not worth it.

5) Fine anybody employed by a football club 3 months salary for saying or doing anything or by omission implying that an official was in some way biased or not giving of their best.

If we did those I think officials would have an easier time of it, there'd be less inconsistency and the game would be more fun to watch and play.

I'm not convinced by your still photo that the decision is wrong. I think its inconclusive. Maynards head or shoulder could well be beyond the last defender.

I think the difference between now and 40 years ago is the amount of coverage. TV has hours to fill with 'expert' punditry and they analyse everything to death which doesnt help.

I agree about the sanctions for cheating though. A stand needs to be made to stamp it out. I'm not sure it could work anywhere but the Prem though as you only have to look at the BCFC highlights to see its a single camera a lot of the time and probably wouldnt be much help with retrospective action.

I've thought about giving teams 1 review per game a bit like they do in cricket when an umpire is sure but the team isnt. It falls down though because you'd have to let play continue and then allow a review unless it was only allowed for goals like Maynards. And again its no good for teams outside the Prem with a single camera.