|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 1, 2015 18:14:17 GMT
Yesterday offside was given when a player, I think it was Crouch, was in an offside position when the ball was played but actually collected it in his own half. The free kick was taken in the Hull half. Can someone clarify this for me please?
|
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Mar 1, 2015 18:16:13 GMT
Yesterday offside was given when a player, I think it was Crouch, was in an offside position when the ball was played but actually collected it in his own half. The free kick was taken in the Hull half. Can someone clarify this for me please? He ran from an offside position in their half to get the ball in our half hence offside??? I wasn't there but that explanation works. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2015 18:17:21 GMT
The free kick is taken from the position the offside player was in when the ball was played.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anto1962 on Mar 1, 2015 18:18:40 GMT
Crouch was offside when the ball was played but ran into his own half to collect it. As soon as he makes an attempt to play the ball from an off side position he is deemed to be live and therefore offside.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2015 18:25:31 GMT
There was a mildly interesting moment in the Pool ManC game earlier - a ball was played over the top for Aguero to chase down, but he just sort of gave up and allow it to roll out of play - it seemed on the replay like he'd realised he was offside and elected not to involve himself, thus gaining the preferable option of a Liverpool throw rather than a free kick. Quite clever play.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 1, 2015 18:28:37 GMT
Okay Lads
thanks for that.
That's what I thought ... doesn't seem right to me somehow.
I think as many gave said this is another rule that needs looking at in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2015 18:32:09 GMT
Okay Lads thanks for that. That's what I thought ... doesn't seem right to me somehow. I think as many gave said this is another rule that needs looking at in my opinion. Which part doesn't seem right? |
|
|
|
Post by Anto1962 on Mar 1, 2015 18:35:43 GMT
You could have a really quick player standing three yards past the half way line with a defender playing him off, running back in his own half chipping the defender and running through to score if you changed it. So I don't think they'll look at it to be honest
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 1, 2015 18:37:36 GMT
I am not a fan of the whole rule since the ' interfering with play option' was introduced. ..too subjective.
Specifically it just seems logically ridiculous to me to be given offside when you have played the ball in your own half. Part of the purpose of the rule change was to allow play to flow ... This seems to be interpretation of the rules for the rules sake.At the very least perhaps there should be an amendment ' offside unless you go back into your own half to play the ball' I don't think that this would be any more confusing than the current state of affairs
|
|
|
|
Post by Anto1962 on Mar 1, 2015 18:38:02 GMT
Okay Lads thanks for that. That's what I thought ... doesn't seem right to me somehow. I think as many gave said this is another rule that needs looking at in my opinion. Which part doesn't seem right? I presume he means the part where he collects it in his own half as you can't usually be offside in your own half. Unfortunately his starting point was offside. |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2015 18:43:24 GMT
I am not a fan of the whole rule since the ' interfering with play option' was introduced. ..too subjective. Specifically it just seems logically ridiculous to me to be given offside when you have played the ball in your own half. Part of the purpose of the rule change was to allow play to flow ... This seems to be interpretation of the rules for the rules sake.At the very least perhaps there should be an amendment ' offside unless you go back into your own half to play the ball' I don't think that this would be any more confusing than the current state of affairs I guess you could have a point in that specific situation. Seems a pretty minor issue with a very rare set of circumstances to worry too much about though. |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Mar 1, 2015 18:44:21 GMT
3 players were yards offside for the 1 St Chelsea goal , presumably not interfering with play but it's pretty barmy anyway
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 1, 2015 18:49:10 GMT
I am not a fan of the whole rule since the ' interfering with play option' was introduced. ..too subjective. Specifically it just seems logically ridiculous to me to be given offside when you have played the ball in your own half. Part of the purpose of the rule change was to allow play to flow ... This seems to be interpretation of the rules for the rules sake.At the very least perhaps there should be an amendment ' offside unless you go back into your own half to play the ball' I don't think that this would be any more confusing than the current state of affairs I guess you could have a point in that specific situation. Seems a pretty minor issue with a very rare set of circumstances to worry too much about though. Thanks Potter What do you think about having a 25 yard line? |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2015 18:56:56 GMT
I guess you could have a point in that specific situation. Seems a pretty minor issue with a very rare set of circumstances to worry too much about though. Thanks Potter What do you think about having a 25 yard line? Don't really see what it would add. I appreciate I'm in a minority here but I don't really have any issue with the rule as it is, and by and large I like the small changes (like level is on and interfering with play) that have come in over the last few years. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Mar 1, 2015 19:08:10 GMT
Yesterday offside was given when a player, I think it was Crouch, was in an offside position when the ball was played but actually collected it in his own half. The free kick was taken in the Hull half. Can someone clarify this for me please? He ran from an offside position in their half to get the ball in our half hence offside??? I wasn't there Call yourself a fan  |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 1, 2015 19:12:00 GMT
Thanks Potter What do you think about having a 25 yard line? Don't really see what it would add. I appreciate I'm in a minority here but I don't really have any issue with the rule as it is, and by and large I like the small changes (like level is on and interfering with play) that have come in over the last few years. okay I agree to an extent . I just think a 25 yard line would open okay up a bit. Level not being off I agree with. I am one of those tgat think that even if a player is on the wing when play is in the middle he is interfering in one interpretation of the rules. Also the 'being in the line of the goalie's sight' is a bit dubious to me .. just a bit too much open to interpretation. .. I have not got a better solution mind ! |
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 1, 2015 19:38:39 GMT
Don't really see what it would add. I appreciate I'm in a minority here but I don't really have any issue with the rule as it is, and by and large I like the small changes (like level is on and interfering with play) that have come in over the last few years. okay I agree to an extent . I just think a 25 yard line would open okay up a bit. Level not being off I agree with. I am one of those tgat think that even if a player is on the wing when play is in the middle he is interfering in one interpretation of the rules. Also the 'being in the line of the goalie's sight' is a bit dubious to me .. just a bit too much open to interpretation. .. I have not got a better solution mind ! It would stretch the game for sure, I'm just not convinced as to whether, or why, that would be desirable - could it not just lead to more hopeful long balls forward? As for the interfering thing, I know it occasionally causes confusion but go back and look at some footage from games in the 80s where good moves frequently break down because the defence steps up and a player is offside when a three-yard ball is played forward on the other side of the pitch - it's soul-destroying! |
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Mar 1, 2015 20:00:43 GMT
okay I agree to an extent . I just think a 25 yard line would open okay up a bit. Level not being off I agree with. I am one of those tgat think that even if a player is on the wing when play is in the middle he is interfering in one interpretation of the rules. Also the 'being in the line of the goalie's sight' is a bit dubious to me .. just a bit too much open to interpretation. .. I have not got a better solution mind ! It would stretch the game for sure, I'm just not convinced as to whether, or why, that would be desirable - could it not just lead to more hopeful long balls forward? As for the interfering thing, I know it occasionally causes confusion but go back and look at some footage from games in the 80s where good moves frequently break down because the defence steps up and a player is offside when a three-yard ball is played forward on the other side of the pitch - it's soul-destroying! True. But the price is uncertainty. I'd like to see some experiments,such as the 25 yard line, in 'less important' competitions such as the League Cup, or its latest incarnation |
|
moaty
Academy Starlet
Posts: 116 
Location: Tomorrow land
|
Post by moaty on Mar 1, 2015 20:16:34 GMT
There was a mildly interesting moment in the Pool ManC game earlier - a ball was played over the top for Aguero to chase down, but he just sort of gave up and allow it to roll out of play - it seemed on the replay like he'd realised he was offside and elected not to involve himself, thus gaining the preferable option of a Liverpool throw rather than a free kick. Quite clever play. The lino has the flag in the middle of both hands as aguero is starting to run towards the ball. The players understand This 'position/stance' as: 'i will be offside if i run for it' thats why he leaves it, he knows he is offside. Very clever play - as a throw-in in their half is better than a free kick. |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Mar 1, 2015 20:43:25 GMT
Offside rules are simple. It all stems from one bloke having two other blokes in front of him or at least level; none of the blokes must interfere with each other, otherwise one of the blokes at the side will wave his flag and the blind bloke will blow his whistle.
Put more simply; if it's a Stoke player he is offside but if he plays for Manure, Shitty, the Arse or Chelski he isn't.
Hope that clarifies it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stretfordpotterer on Mar 2, 2015 9:46:36 GMT
I am not a fan of the whole rule since the ' interfering with play option' was introduced. ..too subjective. Specifically it just seems logically ridiculous to me to be given offside when you have played the ball in your own half. Part of the purpose of the rule change was to allow play to flow ... This seems to be interpretation of the rules for the rules sake.At the very least perhaps there should be an amendment ' offside unless you go back into your own half to play the ball' I don't think that this would be any more confusing than the current state of affairs To me they either need to change the rule back to what it was, ie, if you're offside, then you're offside. Or, my preferred choice would be that you can only be offside in open play if you touch the ball with maybe a rule on deliberately interfering with play from a set piece ie, standing in front of the keeper from a free kick and you could still be offside. The current rule is far too open to interpretation from open play in particular. |
|
|
|
Post by midtempo on Mar 2, 2015 9:51:34 GMT
I guess you could have a point in that specific situation. Seems a pretty minor issue with a very rare set of circumstances to worry too much about though. Thanks Potter What do you think about having a 25 yard line? Watney Cup !!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by dadofsam on Mar 2, 2015 10:07:54 GMT
It's the "offside" player in front of the goalie when a shot comes in that makes a nonsense of the whole thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by pez75 on Mar 2, 2015 10:27:04 GMT
We cannot really grumble about offside decisions after the goal on sat, as old fat head was quick to point out, it probably should not have stood.
|
|
|
|
Post by PotterLog on Mar 2, 2015 12:28:08 GMT
It's the "offside" player in front of the goalie when a shot comes in that makes a nonsense of the whole thing. The current rules do cover that though with interfering with play. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2015 12:34:25 GMT
As for our goal, that was pure desperation and deflection tactics from the fat headed, bent nosed, cock juggling thunder cunt, Steve Bruce.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jug Bank Stokie on Mar 2, 2015 13:34:11 GMT
When Crouch ran back into our half and was then given offside, there were some amazing (and they were being deadly serious) shouts from Block 28. "Learn the fucking rules liner!" "Clueless referee" Only at Stoke eh?  |
|
|
|
Post by Staffsoatcake on Mar 2, 2015 13:37:44 GMT
They should change the offside rule to you can only be offside in the penalty area.  |
|
|
|
Post by stokiejoe on Mar 2, 2015 13:46:36 GMT
They should change the offside rule to you can only be offside in the penalty area. I would be happy with that, old rule version, two defenders between you and the line otherwise you are offside. None of this interfering rubbish, you are either offside or you are not. |
|
|
|
Post by chesterfieldstokie on Mar 2, 2015 15:51:34 GMT
When Crouch ran back into our half and was then given offside, there were some amazing (and they were being deadly serious) shouts from Block 28. "Learn the fucking rules liner!" "Clueless referee" Only at Stoke eh? I cant believe that people who either play or watch football regularly cant understand the offside rule!!! |
|
