Craig Pawson

[Open End Numb Legs]

So if he ran very quickly back to his own box and was passed the ball, could it be a penalty for the offside 50 yards away? Sorry for being facetious, as said, a silly law.

[cidercity1987]

1 hour ago, cidered abroad said:

If I remember correctly about Pawson and our promotion season match at MK Dons.

In the second half, did he fail to give MK a cast iron penalty in exactly the same way that he ignored two for us yesterday?

Yes, a brilliant save by Ayling towards the end of the game

[Davefevs]

57 minutes ago, kit said:

That's correct though and actually should have been deeper into our half. 

The offside is taken at the point that the player becomes offside which is really where he touched the ball which was 20 yards or so from where he was stood in an "offside" position when the ball was played. 

It is a stupid rule but it was correct. 

I had to explain that to the chap sat next to me.

Bonkers rule.

[terpin]

28 minutes ago, Open End Numb Legs said:

So if he ran very quickly back to his own box and was passed the ball, could it be a penalty for the offside 50 yards away? Sorry for being facetious, as said, a silly law.

No, as offsides are indirect freekicks

[firstdivision]

I’ve seen both first-half shouts many times over and I can’t categorically say either were a penalty. On one angle, it looked as if the defender got some of the ball on the first shout. I found it hard to tell. On the other, the TV angle is not clear enough to be definitive. Not to me anyone. I’ve tried to be totally objective about it. 
When we get our one penalty of the decade, I want it to be at a decisive moment in a vital league game. 

[italian dave]

1 hour ago, kit said:

I think there is a typo with what i wote, without referencing the actual rulebook I think below is probably more factually correct.

The freekick is taken at the point that the player becomes active which is really where he touched the ball not where he was stood offside originally.

But like i said it's a stupid law.

Is “seeking to gain an advantage” still part of the offside law?

It always seemed a bit counter intuitive that someone heading in the wrong direction is seeking to gain an advantage by being offside.

[The Dolman Pragmatist]

4 minutes ago, italian dave said:

Is “seeking to gain an advantage” still part of the offside law?

It always seemed a bit counter intuitive that someone heading in the wrong direction is seeking to gain an advantage by being offside.

Spot on.  To be offside you should be beyond the final defender when the ball is passed and when you receive the ball.

[Gimme Shelton]

17 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Spot on.  To be offside you should be beyond the final defender when the ball is passed and when you receive the ball.

Surely that's not right otherwise the Wolves goal against Liverpool Saturday would have been allowed for instance 

[footie]

28 minutes ago, The Dolman Pragmatist said:

Spot on.  To be offside you should be beyond the final defender when the ball is passed and when you receive the ball.

Can't be right, would mean Conway wasn't offside as he was clearly onside when he touched the ball.

Players come back from offside positions and receive the ball in onside positions all the time, - Definitely offside.

Edited January 9, 2023 by footie

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

I had to explain that to the chap sat next to me.

Bonkers rule.

Yep. It’s a bonkers rule, which actually has a lot of problems associated with it. 
The rule is that the free kick is taken from where the player “became active”. 
This is the problem. We see a lot of offsides these days where the flag doesn’t go up until the player touches the ball. But we still see many offsides where the flag goes up BEFORE the player touches the ball. 
This calls into question the ‘becoming active’ rule. 
If Conway had been running forwards in this incident, would the lino have flagged him offside just inside the opposition half, or would he have flagged him when he was maybe 30 yards further upfield when he actually touched the ball? 
If flagged just inside the half, then that’s when he was determined to be “active”, so why wasn’t he determined to be “active” just because he was running toward his own goal. 
So many times nowadays we see the flag go up when the player touches the ball and yet we also still have loads of offsides given straight away, way before the player touches the ball. 
It can’t be both ways, surely. 

10 minutes ago, Gimme Shelton said:

Surely that's not right otherwise the Wolves goal against Liverpool Saturday would have been allowed for instance 

Yep, and we all knew that rule when it screwed us over on the Taylor Moore incident vs Norwich a couple of years back. 
It’s a ridiculous rule. 
In context of what I’ve written above, in terms of when a player “becomes active”, this particular facet of the offside rule is total bollox.
The lino is not determining Salah to be offside when the pass is played, judging him to not be “active” at that point. But surely, if that defender hadn’t headed it, and he was clearly way offside, the lino would’ve flagged BEFORE Salah got the ball, which means he was “active” when it was kicked. 
It’s all a load of nonsense. 

[PHILINFRANCE]

41 minutes ago, Harry said:

Yep, and we all knew that rule when it screwed us over on the Taylor Moore incident vs Norwich a couple of years back. 
It’s a ridiculous rule. 
 

The incident I remember was against Middlesbrough (Assembongo {sp}), although there may have been several incidents.

[PHILINFRANCE]

2 hours ago, kit said:

That's correct though and actually should have been deeper into our half. 

The offside is taken at the point that the player becomes offside which is really where he touched the ball which was 20 yards or so from where he was stood in an "offside" position when the ball was played. 

It is a stupid rule but it was correct. 

 

2 hours ago, asfred said:

But when the offence started (being offside) he was in the opposition half, running back into our half, where he then directly affected play. It is at that point where the kick is taken,

 

2 hours ago, kit said:

I think there is a typo with what i wote, without referencing the actual rulebook I think below is probably more factually correct.

The freekick is taken at the point that the player becomes active which is really where he touched the ball not where he was stood offside originally.

But like i said it's a stupid law.

I am sure you are both correct, but perhaps the 'rulemakers' might take in to account how people of a certain age struggle sometimes to understand, let alone accept, evolution.

As somebody who struggles to accept that neither Czechoslovakia nor Yugoslavia exist anymore (Don't even mention Zaire, as I sometimes struggle with Rhodesia!), I shall remain convinced that a player cannot be offside in his own half.

Ergo, how can an opposing team possibly take a free kick for offside in the offending team's own half?!

[Harry]

4 hours ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

The incident I remember was against Middlesbrough (Assembongo {sp}), although there may have been several incidents.

Sorry. Yep, it was that one. 
I was thinking something happened with Taylor Moore v Norwich, but I now recall it was when he stood on the ball in his own box and allowed them to score!! 

Edited January 9, 2023 by Harry

[Davefevs]

27 minutes ago, Harry said:

Sorry. Yep, it was that one. 
I was thinking something happened with Taylor Moore v Norwich, but I now recall it was when he stood on the ball in his own box and allowed them to score!! 

Moore, Vyner and Kalas v Norwich (h) when Nahki missed a penalty was probably the worst back-three defensive performance I’ve seen at this level.  We actually played alright that day, but not those three.

It still gives me nightmares.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Davefevs

[Northern Red]

I see our chum has the North London derby today as reward for his performance last weekend.

[Numero Uno]

2 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

I see our chum has the North London derby today as reward for his performance last weekend.

Easy game to ref though. Spurs not laying a glove on Arsenal….

[East Londoner]

Back in the day you got the same ref for the replay that did the first game, is this still the case?

[Vidal]

13 minutes ago, Northern Red said:

I see our chum has the North London derby today as reward for his performance last weekend.

Laughable isn’t it. Makes a mockery of standards and performance measures. 

[Lanterne Rouge]

39 minutes ago, East Londoner said:

Back in the day you got the same ref for the replay that did the first game, is this still the case?

I think so. I believe they can change them if something particularly controversial happened in the first game though.