'Offside' goal

[Harry Potter]

Worst refs in the world employed by the worst football association.

week in week out we get the same , its a wonder our game keeps going. 

[DETTY29]

I disagree with Michael Stewart's analysis about real time and speed Wallace comes out.

 

If Cowie is allowed to come back on to the field of play, when Paterson kicks the ball, the linesman should be in line with Lee Wallace, i.e virtually on the goal line.  The only way a Hearts player could be offside is if there is a Hearts player on the goal line itself.

 

As a PS, when Rangers had their goal chalked off, the assistant never moved from the line of the last Hearts defender.  Watch the coverage again from yesterday.  If the linesman believed either Cowie (or Djoum) is offside, note where he is standing.  I'd say 10 to 15 yards from where he should be.

 

No-one is that incompetent.

[JamboGraham]

As a PS, when Rangers had their goal chalked off, the assistant never moved from the line of the last Hearts defender.  Watch the coverage again from yesterday.  If the linesman believed either Cowie (or Djoum) is offside, note where he is standing.  I'd say 10 to 15 yards from where he should be.

 

No-one is that incompetent.

Indeed, the position of the linesman is very, very poor. He should be almost at the corner flag. So he has guessed at it from an awful position. The position he has when the ref goes over to him is the same as he had when he flagged. (I was watching him rather than our players celebrating) His flag was up when the Hearts players were celebrating in the corner. Beaton went over and checked with him later.

 

Unfortunately the lazy response is to say we got one last week, they got one this week...only one was onside and the other wasn't so any comparison is just stupid!

[DETTY29]

Indeed, the position of the linesman is very, very poor. He should be almost at the corner flag. So he has guessed at it from an awful position. The position he has when the ref goes over to him is the same as he had when he flagged. (I was watching him rather than our players celebrating) His flag was up when the Hearts players were celebrating in the corner. Beaton went over and checked with him later.

 

Unfortunately the lazy response is to say we got one last week, they got one this week...only one was onside and the other wasn't so any comparison is just stupid!

That's interesting because I'd sort of assumed he had started to head to the half way line to give the goal, then changed his mind.

 

Considering the save, Djoum getting the ball back, the pass to Paterson, the shot, it's really bizarre he is standing where he is.

 

He appears to be well past the 10 yard marker from the corner flag.

[indianajones]

ONSIDE.

 

What a complete joke our officials are. 

 

Embarrassing. 

[Guess The Crowd]

This has become more complicated, due to the fact that Cowie clearly goes off the pitch, then comes back on, prior to scoring.

 

Rangers fans adamant this makes it offside, per the laws of the game.

[graygo]

This has become more complicated, due to the fact that Cowie clearly goes off the pitch, then comes back on, prior to scoring.

 

Rangers fans adamant this makes it offside, per the laws of the game.

 

Then the Rangers fans are wrong, there is no such rule.

[DETTY29]

Euan Murray now apologising on twitter for previously saying Cowie was onside, and now saying he was offside for coming back on to field of play

 

I'd imagine he has checked with someone in authority.

 

So until the ball leaves the penalty area, or the game stopped, where-ever Cowie positions himself, once he becomes active, he will always be considered as standing on the goal line in an offside position.  The goal line is the distance from corner flag to corner flag.

 

Conversely, does the same stand for defenders whose momentum takes them over the goal line?  Even if they come back on, they will always be considered as being on the line so as long as the keeper is on his line, it's near impossible for the attacking team to be offside.

 

i.e if your momentum takes you off the field on the goal line your are well staying there although from the defenders perspective you can still challenge for the ball, but there is no point rushing out to leave an attacker isolated in an offside position.

[graygo]

As above and having double checked I need to "do a Euan Murray" and withdraw my assertion that Cowie was onside.

 

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside their penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee?s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned.

Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside#3I7QmMZJkyOiC31a.99

[gjcc]

That reads to me as it applies if the "stepping off" is intentional, not momentum. I'm happy to be corrected though.

 

Fifa laws of the game states that

"If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of a playing movement."

[DETTY29]

That reads to me as it applies if the "stepping off" is intentional, not momentum. I'm happy to be corrected though.

Fifa laws of the game states that

"If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of a playing movement."

I (now) think that law is to cover players leaving field of play without refs permission. It would be unworkable to have a law where anytime you left pitch, you needed to ask.

 

I read somewhere that players are also able to step off pitch without refs permission to make it clear they are not intending on interfering with play if say they were in an offside position. But they really should stay off the pitch until the ball is out of play or heading out of penalty area towards half way line and a new clear phase of play.

 

If Cowie had stepped off pitch say, claiming he was injured only to come back and get involved in play, he would be booked.

[gjcc]

I (now) think that law is to cover players leaving field of play without refs permission. It would be unworkable to have a law where anytime you left pitch, you needed to ask.

 

I read somewhere that players are also able to step off pitch without refs permission to make it clear they are not intending on interfering with play if say they were in an offside position. But they really should stay off the pitch until the ball is out of play or heading out of penalty area towards half way line and a new clear phase of play.

 

If Cowie had stepped off pitch say, claiming he was injured only to come back and get involved in play, he would be booked.

That's exactly where I am on the matter. Not that is correct but simply my interpretation.

 

The rules are ambiguous to say the least, you can draw differing conclusions depending on where you garner the information from. even if from the same section, it can often have a myriad of meanings.

 

Mental in over 100 years of football something like this still causes confusion.

[The Future's Maroon]

ONSIDE.

 

What a complete joke our officials are. 

 

Embarrassing. 

 

I'll be honest, from watching on the t'internet I thought it was off....split second decision from ref, they go for you and against you at times!

[Seymour M Hersh]

I'll be honest, from watching on the t'internet I thought it was off....split second decision from ref, they go for you and against you at times!

 

Hardly split second if he wandered over to speak to the lino for a bit is it?  And in any case it is the Lino who appears to have decoded it was (wrongly) offside. 

[kimosavi]

Here is cowie off the field of play. He can choose to stay off the field to avoid being offside. The rules state that if he enters the field of play after being off it he then needs the refs permission to re enter the fray and i'd imagine this is why the goal is chopped off

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Sherbet]

Players step of the pitch to take corners and throw ins and don't require permission to re enter

[Harry Potter]

Players step of the pitch to take corners and throw ins and don't require permission to re enter

Aye but in this case that was not the reason, too many grey areas in the offside law.

For years dodgy decisions both ways because the laws are not clear.

[Diego10]

Here is cowie off the field of play. He can choose to stay off the field to avoid being offside. The rules state that if he enters the field of play after being off it he then needs the refs permission to re enter the fray and i'd imagine this is why the goal is chopped off

 

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

That's not what that rule is about. It's about making a deliberate decision to step off in order not to be offside, for example if the ball is coming to you on the by line and you know you'd be offside if you touched it. You're then considered offside if you rejoin in

the same phase

 

Cowie's momentum takes him off the park and he returned while still part of an onside move.

[The Treasurer]

Not read the whole thread so maybe already covered.

When the goal was scored it was impossible to see from the other end if it was onside or not, but when the sevco players started claiming I looked at both the linesman and ref.

Both had indicated a goal. The linesman had started to run to the half way line and beaton had pointed to the centre.

So it was only the actions of the sevco players that made them think again and, of course, favour the arse-cheek club.

[DETTY29]

Not read the whole thread so maybe already covered.

When the goal was scored it was impossible to see from the other end if it was onside or not, but when the sevco players started claiming I looked at both the linesman and ref.

Both had indicated a goal. The linesman had started to run to the half way line and beaton had pointed to the centre.

So it was only the actions of the sevco players that made them think again and, of course, favour the arse-cheek club.

While I now believe Cowie is offside, it's some spot from the linesman to notice that Cowie stepped off the field of play with Djoum, Wallace, Fotheringham potentially blocking the view.

 

If the Rangers players had called out to the officials Cowie had stepped off field of play, then it's to their credit they understood the rules.

 

If you watch Djoum, he appears to make an attempt to come back on to the field but stops himself on the line, suggesting similarly, he was aware he was considered offside.

 

So technically we had two players who shouldn't have come back on and become involved.

 

So say in the unlikely event Paterson's shot was so bad and headed to corner flag, is won by Rerhas who crosses into the box, they can decide to come on but neither can become active.

[Jammy T]

Surely if Cowie has stepped off the pitch and come back on without refs permission and this been offside he should have been booked?

[mr fox]

He's onside (though the Rangers boy moves quick and makes it seem like he's offside):

 

That picture is bang on he is never offside

 

 

[Tommy Brown]

Not read the whole thread so maybe already covered.

When the goal was scored it was impossible to see from the other end if it was onside or not, but when the sevco players started claiming I looked at both the linesman and ref.

Both had indicated a goal. The linesman had started to run to the half way line and beaton had pointed to the centre.

So it was only the actions of the sevco players that made them think again and, of course, favour the arse-cheek club.

 

Not the Rangers II players, the supporters.

 

work colleague this morning.

"The linesman shat it, gave the goal and started heading back, the roar of abuse made him stop and put his flag up"

This from a ST holder in the area close to the assistant.

[DETTY29]

Surely if Cowie has stepped off the pitch and come back on without refs permission and this been offside he should have been booked?

He is allowed to leave field of play without permission if momentum takes him over and I think to indicate to match officials that while I an offside position, he doesn't want to be active. Re latter I read that from an old FIFA rules pdf rather than 200 odd page revised document from 01 June.

 

So you are allowed back on to prepare for next phase of play but not allowed to be involved in the current one. Under the text it appears if you deliberately leave field of play and become active, if you shoot, ie offside, no booking, but gain an advantage by say tackling someone, it is a yellow.

 

But to confuse matters Cowie hadn't deliberately left field of play so while it is an offence to become active, it isn't a bookable offence.

 

It's a bit of a mess.

[Hearts007]

Watched sportscene and agree with both steven thompson and michael stewart the goal should have stood

[Pistol1874]

That's not what that rule is about. It's about making a deliberate decision to step off in order not to be offside, for example if the ball is coming to you on the by line and you know you'd be offside if you touched it. You're then considered offside if you rejoin in

the same phase

 

Cowie's momentum takes him off the park and he returned while still part of an onside move.

This is correct IMO. Cowie's run took him off the pitch but he returned immediately, he didn't even stop moving.

No different to running outside the sideline going down the wing in terms of requiring permission to return to the pitch.

No doubt at all for me that the goal is onside and should have stood.

It seems much more likely that the officials guessed in light of noise from the crowd and took the path of least resistance. Only they will know their motivation for doing so.

[Erik]

The fact that, even to people who know and understand football, this rule seems about as clear as mud says a lot.

 

I'd like to think / hope that the rule as described above wouldnt have been written in order to catch players out in the scenario as it played out on Saturday.

 

He wasnt looking to gain any advantage by leaving the field, and it literally has zero effect on the course of play.

 

Not offside and the goal should have stood is the verdict i'd go with as well.

 

Conveniently though, this 'rule' thing probably gives the officials something to hide behind. I dont for one minute believe they gave it as offside on the back of that rule...... now that its been discussed and banded about though, i dare say that'll be exactly why they'll claim the decision was taken.

[Hearts007]

The Sevco keeper even thought the goal had been given, he looks at the linesman and raises his arm in hope, then drops his arm and his head in despair next thing the goal is chopped off

[Pistol1874]

The fact that, even to people who know and understand football, this rule seems about as clear as mud says a lot.

 

I'd like to think / hope that the rule as described above wouldnt have been written in order to catch players out in the scenario as it played out on Saturday.

 

He wasnt looking to gain any advantage by leaving the field, and it literally has zero effect on the course of play.

 

Not offside and the goal should have stood is the verdict i'd go with as well.

 

Conveniently though, this 'rule' thing probably gives the officials something to hide behind. I dont for one minute believe they gave it as offside on the back of that rule...... now that its been discussed and banded about though, i dare say that'll be exactly why they'll claim the decision was taken.

Agree with this too.

[maroonlegions]

Not read the whole thread so maybe already covered.

When the goal was scored it was impossible to see from the other end if it was onside or not, but when the sevco players started claiming I looked at both the linesman and ref.

Both had indicated a goal. The linesman had started to run to the half way line and beaton had pointed to the centre.

So it was only the actions of the sevco players that made them think again and, of course, favour the arse-cheek club.

 

The difference is the term "will-full" did Cowie wilfully leave the field of play? Or was it his momentum, if momentum then the goal should have stood. Seems that some in the press are hinting he wilfully left the feld of play. 

[The Treasurer]

The difference is the term "will-full" did Cowie wilfully leave the field of play? Or was it his momentum, if momentum then the goal should have stood. Seems that some in the press are hinting he wilfully left the feld of play. 

If and it's a big if, Cowie "willfully" left the field, you'd really need to ask him WTF did he do that for when we were attacking.

It's clear his momentum carried him over the line but he immediately came back and took up an onside position.

As has been pointed out, both officials gave a goal, but for reasons only they know (well actually we all know) they wrongly changed their minds.

[DETTY29]

This is correct IMO. Cowie's run took him off the pitch but he returned immediately, he didn't even stop moving.

No different to running outside the sideline going down the wing in terms of requiring permission to return to the pitch.

No doubt at all for me that the goal is onside and should have stood.

It seems much more likely that the officials guessed in light of noise from the crowd and took the path of least resistance. Only they will know their motivation for doing so.

This I certainly agree with.

 

Let's say Cowie is offside for even 'accidentally' leaving the field of play, the 'genuine' mistake would not be noticing Cowie a foot over the line.  The referee would be watching the ball and there was several bodies and the posts between the assistant and Cowie.  As with the Guidetti penalty incident in the SC, the actions of the assistant are the direct opposite of what played out.  If the assistant realises Cowie is off the field of play, he should never have moved from virtually the corner flag and buzzed the referee. 

Remember at the Tynecastle game, while the assistant didn't put his flag up immediately, he never moved from his spot until he agreed with the ref what played out.  Then he put his flag up.  T

 

The only feasible reasoning (outwith player, crowd pressure) is that a Rangers player has said to one of the match officials that Cowie had left field of play.

 

We don't trust the SFA, the officials and the Head of Referees as it is.  And over the weekend they want to write the Terms of Reference in decide the scope of any child abuse inquiry.

[maroonlegions]

If and it's a big if, Cowie "willfully" left the field, you'd really need to ask him WTF did he do that for when we were attacking.

It's clear his momentum carried him over the line but he immediately came back and took up an onside position.

As has been pointed out, both officials gave a goal, but for reasons only they know (well actually we all know) they wrongly changed their minds.

Players  leave the field of play due to their momentum all the time but  on this occasion it seems a very strange decision  made by the officials.Other way round and that goal would have stood.

[DETTY29]

The difference is the term "will-full" did Cowie wilfully leave the field of play? Or was it his momentum, if momentum then the goal should have stood. Seems that some in the press are hinting he wilfully left the feld of play. 

Cowie attacked the ball at the front post and his momentum took him a foot, two at most over.

 

If the press are going to give an opinion then debate the 'disputable' interpretations, don't just lie.

[Mikey1874]

Can only think with the lack of a flag and the conversation that the goal was disallowed because Cowie left the field.

 

A good decision if correct but see this is being questioned. If allowed then they don't know the rules which is very poor.

[Jammy T]

I'm not that raging about this decision to be honest but in modern sport my view is that we should have a video ref. It's honking that we don't.

 

Penalties, offside goals.

 

It's no drama.

[DETTY29]

Can only think with the lack of a flag and the conversation that the goal was disallowed because Cowie left the field.

 

A good decision if correct but see this is being questioned. If allowed then they don't know the rules which is very poor.

If Beaton sees Cowie go off the field and then score he should immediately stop play and go to the linesman to query if there was 2 players on the goal line (which is corner flag to corner flag) at the point of Cowie kicking the ball. 

 

If the assistant sees Cowie go off the field, at the point of Cowie shooting, he should immediately put his flag up  a foot or two from the corner flag unless there is 2 Rangers player on the line, which would keep Cowie onside.

 

Neither happened.

 

That said until the game restarts the officials can change their mind so maybe just maybe one of them has thought we better have a chat about this again.

 

There is conflicting views on why the assistant was standing 15 yards away from where he should have been discussing the play.  One that he (and Beaton) were happy to award goal and this is where he stopped when heading to the half way line, the other that he was standing there all along and badly out of position.

 

Maybe they have fluked the correct decision for whatever reason.....

[Shaggy2]

How does that rule work if a defender (as Wallace may have) steps over the goal line and comes back on to clear off the line or block a shot?

 

It's just a bollocks, get out of jail free card. The way it's worded allows all sorts of interpretations if a goal is allowed as well as disallowed.

[DETTY29]

I'm not that raging about this decision to be honest but in modern sport my view is that we should have a video ref. It's honking that we don't.

 

Penalties, offside goals.

 

It's no drama.

Another anomaly is that match officials do not submit their report immediately the match finishes.  Unless rules have changed, I watched a G1 do his Saturday match report on the Monday morning at work.  That is unacceptable.  It should be done immediately, even in sight of an independent arbitrator.

 

I think in the Premiership there is a TV in some officials dressing rooms.  Again, these should be removed.

[Musemic]

Spoke to a The Rangers s/t holder this morning who has a seat behind the goals wher the 'goal' was scored. He says the linesman was at the corner flag when Cowie knocked it in the net and then started running up toward the half way line (so clearly, at that time he thought the 'goal' was good). Beaton then presumably had a word in his ear along the lines of "we're surely not going to give that are we, get your flag up pronto", hence the reason he was 15 yards up the pitch when he raised his flag. 

[Thomaso]

Weegie logic -

 

The Gers got a goal disallowed that was OFFSIDE

 

The Hertz got a goal disallowed that was ONSIDE

 

So that balances that oot then.

[Mikey1874]

Rob McLean on BBC website says goal should have stood.

[DETTY29]

Best of luck.

 

But probably more clear than the attacking one (I think) as it mentions leaving field of play, distinguishes deliberate act but no mention of stepping off the field of play.

 

So if on Saturday a Rangers player had left the field at same time as Cowie through momentum if momentum is deemed stepping off play, then for offside, he will always be deemed as being on the goal line.  With the keeper being on the line, that would then place Cowie, the keeper and the Rangers player all on the line, so Cowie would be onside.

 

The defender can come back on and 'defend' without punishment however there is no point him trying to play someone offside until a new phase of play after the ball is outside the penalty box as he will be considered as standing on the line.

 

My follow up question is whether or not a defender, similar to an attacker is allowed to step off field to prove inactivity.  I doubt it unless injured and referee gives permission.  The player would be deemed as being on the field in line with where he stepped off the pitch.

 

How does that rule work if a defender (as Wallace may have) steps over the goal line and comes back on to clear off the line or block a shot?

It's just a bollocks, get out of jail free card. The way it's worded allows all sorts of interpretations if a goal is allowed as well as disallowed.

A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee?s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside their penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play.

An attacking player may step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play. If the player re-enters from the goal line and becomes involved in play before the next stoppage in play, or the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside their penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line for the purposes of offside. A player who deliberately leaves the field of play and re-enters without the referee?s permission and is not penalised for offside and gains an advantage, must be cautioned.
Read more at http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside#rWh7ae5CQMWDeCpF.99

[DETTY29]

Rob McLean on BBC website says goal should have stood.

Has he explained the laws and confirming the debate we are now having, or going by when Paterson shoots?

 

Got a link by any chance?

[RussAsia]

To the people saying that it was correctly called as an offside goal you are in turn saying that Cowie meant to leave the field of play..

 

That's just utter nonsense.. his momentum carried him over and he then went back legally onto the park...

 

there is no hiding behind the fact that the Linesman made a James Hunt of it and there should be a query made by Hearts and then we should hear if an apology has been given..

 

Can put the query in while we appeal Walker's booking for diving..

[Mikey1874]

Has he explained the laws and confirming the debate we are now having, or going by when Paterson shoots?

 

Got a link by any chance?

No just a comment in newly posted '5 things we learned from weekend'

 

"Although Hearts had a goal wrongly ruled out..."

 

Piece says Hearts need to strength

[maroonlegions]

To the people saying that it was correctly called as an offside goal you are in turn saying that Cowie meant to leave the field of play..

 

That's just utter nonsense.. his momentum carried him over and he then went back legally onto the park...

 

there is no hiding behind the fact that the Linesman made a James Hunt of it and there should be a query made by Hearts and then we should hear if an apology has been given..

 

Can put the query in while we appeal Walker's booking for diving..

[Mikey1874]

These sort of things do highlight the benefits of refs explaining decisions after game.

[Cruyff Turn]

These sort of things do highlight the benefits of refs explaining decisions after game.

Yep.

 

The offside rule wording is quite cloudy if Cowie is offside.

 

They should just change it back to what it was before, if you're in an offside position when the ball is played forward you are offside.

 

Then I suppose the likes of Messi and Ronaldo wouldn't get 50 goals a season.

[Diego10]

Dermot Gallagher there on Sky saying it should have stood as Cowie is entitled to rejoin play.

 

Still, I'm sure it would have been disallowed at other end.