|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Dec 20, 2014 16:04:00 GMT
Tbf to the liner Zaha was right in front of him so the Man City player I think was easily missed. Saying that, the liner should be in line with the last defender...... Video refs would kill football imo. Surely, Zaha being in his line of sight should not make any difference. Assistant Refs are supposed to call offsides based on what they ACTUALLY SEE, not on what they think they might have seen if their line of sight had not been obstructed. If the linesman can't see the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the attacker unless the ref saw an offside himself.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 20, 2014 16:06:10 GMT
Tbf to the liner Zaha was right in front of him so the Man City player I think was easily missed. Saying that, the liner should be in line with the last defender...... Video refs would kill football imo. Surely, Zaha being in his line of sight should not make any difference. Assistant Refs are supposed to call offsides based on what they ACTUALLY SEE, not on what they think they might have seen if their line of sight had not been obstructed. If the linesman can't see the benefit is supposed to go to the attacker unless the ref saw an offside himself. He would have seen Zaha's making any decision hard, he would have seen the defender furthest away ie the one who makes it look it's offside. I don't think he would have even seen the defender that is playing him on. Which isn't an excuse, he should be line with him but I think it's very easy to see how he has got it wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Dec 20, 2014 16:10:35 GMT
The goalkeeper must have some regard fort a player in the 6 yard box, which to me is interfering. Diouf was onside. Anyway it would be boring if we all agreed. But Walters was inside the 6 yard area, so by your rules it should have been disallowed.... Sadly yes and it was but for the wrong reasons, on the interpretation of the rules as they are it was a valid goal, but the keeper must have been aware of Walters in his vision, it's almost impossible not to be distracted by someone moving at that close range, which is why I say the "interference" rule is nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 20, 2014 16:13:07 GMT
But Walters was inside the 6 yard area, so by your rules it should have been disallowed.... Sadly yes and it was but for the wrong reasons, on the interpretation of the rules as they are it was a valid goal, but the keeper must have been aware of Walters in his vision, it's almost impossible not to be distracted by someone moving at that close range, which is why I say the "interference" rule is nonsensical. I do agree that is but I don't think that one was offside, which is why I think video video refs are nonsensical.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Dec 20, 2014 16:19:54 GMT
Sadly yes and it was but for the wrong reasons, on the interpretation of the rules as they are it was a valid goal, but the keeper must have been aware of Walters in his vision, it's almost impossible not to be distracted by someone moving at that close range, which is why I say the "interference" rule is nonsensical.[/ quote] I do agree that is but I don't think that one was offside, which is why I think video video refs are nonsensical. Exactly to my point, the goal would have been given by a video ref properly interpreting the rules as they are. Walters in an offside position but not interfering, Diouf level when the ball was played and therefore not offside. Pleased that we now agree on hiw beneficial a video ref would be.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 20, 2014 16:22:17 GMT
Exactly to my point, the goal would have been given by a video ref properly interpreting the rules as they are. Walters in an offside position but not interfering, Diouf level when the ball was played and therefore not offside. Pleased that we now agree on hiw beneficial a video ref would be. But you've said if you're in the 6 yard you've got to be interfering... This is just proving my point.
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Dec 20, 2014 16:43:43 GMT
z But you've said if you're in the 6 yard you've got to be interfering... This is just proving my point. But that is not how the referees interpret the rules, it seems that you are only deemed to be interfering if you touch the ball, so a video ref would have given it. This is why I wish the rule would be changed so it isn't open to subjective opinion. Players would then be more careful not to stand in an offside position as they had to in my day.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Dec 20, 2014 16:45:26 GMT
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
Back in the day though, you had perfectly good goals chalked off for shit offside calls.
|
|