'Offside' goal

[Thomaso]

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

 

Probably the same explanation that Andy Davis would have given!

[alwaysthereinspirit]

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.

As we're always informed, in Scottish football these decisions even themselves out over a full season.

Both Celtic and Newco get the same number of iffy decisions as each other.

[Mikey1874]

Do we need to go over all of these questions every time there's a mistake with an offside call?

 

Jings. Talk about tiresome. It's a mistake. That's life.

It is worth debating and more people are picking it up

 

It might just be that the officials don't know the rules or at best misinterpreted them

 

So it's very worthy of debate

[DETTY29]

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.

I was going to change my mind again and say onside.

 

Attacking wording starts 'A player may step off and stay off.....'  this goes back to a law I found that said attacking players may leave field of play if in an offside position to show to ref that they are not trying to gain an advantage.  They are allowed back on pitch, but shouldn't really engage in play until the ball is cleared from the penalty area, or stopped for another reason.

 

Defensive wording 'A player may leave the field of play....' This really mean that unless the defender has sought the referees permission to leave the field, if he is over the goal line he will be considered as being in play.  Or at the side off the pitch, this becomes the new offside line.  This stops a defensive player from leaving the pitch to try and play offside.

 

If this is the case that Cowie is entitled to come back on and be active, then the officials actions are worthy of serious questioning.  Both gave the goal initially so the only debate can be what the rules are in terms of Cowie leaving the field of play which is a clear momentum decision.

[DETTY29]

Probably the same explanation that Andy Davis would have given!

To give that cheating piece of whatever some credit, at least when in the act of cheating, he acted as the linesman should have by not moving from the spot to clarify with Dallas, although if he was absolutely clear it was a penalty he should have went behind the goal line.

 

'Brother Hugh, I haven't moved to award the goal kick because Rangers really need a goal.  Penalty it is Brother Andrew'

[michael_bolton]

It is worth debating and more people are picking it up

 

It might just be that the officials don't know the rules or at best misinterpreted them

 

So it's very worthy of debate

 

My problem's not with the debate. I love a geeky football rules debate.

 

My problem is with the tone of this thread assuming we have been shafted. As this thread shows, it was far from a simple call.

 

As I said previously, I think the authorities could help by simplifying the offside rule (and handball while they're at it).

[jamboruss]

My problem's not with the debate. I love a geeky football rules debate.

 

My problem is with the tone of this thread assuming we have been shafted. As this thread shows, it was far from a simple call.

 

As I said previously, I think the authorities could help by simplifying the offside rule (and handball while they're at it).

 Disagree, it was a VERY simple call. If it favours the erse-cheeks, that's the way it goes.

 

simple.

[Drewboy]

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

Agreed!

When watching the game I didn't think it was offside. The replays showed that he was on side (in my limited knowledge of the laws). It seems that ex-pros also thought it was on-side but actually the officials got the decision correct.

We should give the officials credit that they got the correct decision. (This sentence sticks in my throat!)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soonbe110]

My problem's not with the debate. I love a geeky football rules debate.

 

My problem is with the tone of this thread assuming we have been shafted. As this thread shows, it was far from a simple call.

 

As I said previously, I think the authorities could help by simplifying the offside rule (and handball while they're at it).

It was pretty straightforward. The goal was disallowed for one of two reasons, a) the linesman and/or ref dont know the correct rules re players leaving the pitch i.e. Incompetence or bias. Players can leave the pitch and return without the refs explicit permission if it's as a result of open play rather than trying to avoid being offside. They can also leave the field and return without the refs explicit permission if the game has stopped eg goalkicks, corners etc. Too many people trying to make this complicated. Dermot G's view will do for me.

[michael_bolton]

It was pretty straightforward. The goal was disallowed for one of two reasons, a) the linesman and/or ref dont know the correct rules re players leaving the pitch i.e. Incompetence or bias. Players can leave the pitch and return without the refs explicit permission if it's as a result of open play rather than trying to avoid being offside. They can also leave the field and return without the refs explicit permission if the game has stopped eg goalkicks, corners etc. Too many people trying to make this complicated. Dermot G's view will do for me.

 

Your paragraph itself is complicated.

 

As I said before, this could be helped by a simplification of the rules. Various people have given different opinions on how this should be interpreted. That's the problem.

[Erik]

My problem's not with the debate. I love a geeky football rules debate.

 

My problem is with the tone of this thread assuming we have been shafted. As this thread shows, it was far from a simple call.

 

As I said previously, I think the authorities could help by simplifying the offside rule (and handball while they're at it).

 

The only thing that's resulted in the debate, or indeed even any question as to whether it was correct or not is a few folks interpretation of a rule which doesn't even apply in this situation.

 

Take away the debate about whether the rule applies in this instance and its the most simple call you'll ever see.

 

It was a simple call, and one which highlights a number of inconsistencies in terms of why the linesman began running back up the line and then changed his mind.

 

In that respect - we WERE shafted. The goal was chalked off incorrectly and should have stood.

 

If Dermot Gallagher reckons Cowie is entitled to re-join play and that the goal should stand - i'm inclined to believe him.

[michael_bolton]

The only thing that's resulted in the debate, or indeed even any question as to whether it was correct or not is a few folks interpretation of a rule which doesn't even apply in this situation.

 

Take away the debate about whether the rule applies in this instance and its the most simple call you'll ever see.

 

It was a simple call, and one which highlights a number of inconsistencies in terms of why the linesman began running back up the line and then changed his mind.

 

In that respect - we WERE shafted. The goal was chalked off incorrectly and should have stood.

 

If Dermot Gallagher reckons Cowie is entitled to re-join play and that the goal should stand - i'm inclined to believe him.

 

Gallagher is one referee. There are thousands of them.

 

I'm not saying the call was correct, I don't think I've ever said or implied that. I'm just saying I can understand why the linesman got it wrong.

 

'Shafted' implies the linesman deliberately set out to do us over. I'm not convinced that's the case. It was a bad call, but there are thousands of them up and down the country every weekend. I'd rather we just got on with it and made sure we could defend simple cross balls a bit better.

[Lincon Premier]

Even if Cowie is judged to be on the goal line, surely Wallace still plays him onside as he had a foot on the line when the ball was played. He only moved off the line after Paterson kicked the ball so for me Cowie is still onside even if considered to be on the goal line.

[Thomaso]

My problem's not with the debate. I love a geeky football rules debate.

 

My problem is with the tone of this thread assuming we have been shafted. As this thread shows, it was far from a simple call.

 

As I said previously, I think the authorities could help by simplifying the offside rule (and handball while they're at it).

 

Eh????

 

As Michael Stewart said - the Rangers keeper and defender were both standing on the goal line - as such it was virtually impossible for Cowie to be offside.

[michael_bolton]

Eh????

 

As Michael Stewart said - the Rangers keeper and defender were both standing on the goal line - as such it was virtually impossible for Cowie to be offside.

 

That doesn't make the decision easy in real time with no replay.

[Thomaso]

Even if Cowie is judged to be on the goal line, surely Wallace still plays him onside as he had a foot on the line when the ball was played. He only moved off the line after Paterson kicked the ball so for me Cowie is still onside even if considered to be on the goal line.

 

Correct - Cowie could be no worse than IN LINE

[Thomaso]

That doesn't make the decision easy in real time with no replay.

 

The linesman was looking right along the line with a clear view of Wallace and the keeper FFS!

[Mikey1874]

I think they decided he had left field hence decision

 

Not about being in line

[The Continental Op]

just a question. Is Cowie allowed to rejoin play like that from off the pitch ?That was my first thought when the goal was ruled out. He certainly isn't offside when that ball is played.

The odd rule about leaving and rejoining the pitch and being considered to be on the bye line only applies to the defending players.

 

Edit: it's actually only an attached guidance note in the Laws of the Game

[michael_bolton]

The linesman was looking right along the line with a clear view of Wallace and the keeper FFS!

 

Aye, but people move. The linesman was looking at a situation where he had to account for the movement of at least four people at a time when a player mis-hit a shot across the goal towards the side he had an obstructed view of.

 

Dress it up any way you like, that's not easy.

[DETTY29]

While the rules are confusing for us laymen, I'm pretty sure the officials know what they mean.

 

There is no way in the world fully qualified Grade 1 etc match officials are going to come out and say 'Aaah, I didn't understand that's what the rule meant, sorry I got it wrong' 

 

They might come out and say they made a mistake or 'this is what I believed I saw, but sorry I got it wrong'

 

That said things ball to hand, or position of hand may be deemed subjective and open to interpretation.

 

Back to laymen, we need one clear guidance which is whether or not a player is allowed to come back on to the field and take active part if his momentum takes him off, or whether it's a hard fast rule that under the circumstances, by coming back on Cowie will always be deemed as standing on the goal line, momentum or not.  FIFA, UEFA, the SFA will all know what the rule means.

 

There options here are:-

 

1)  Cowie is offside because he left the field of play and the law means he is offside when he returns, irrespective of whatever circumstances he left the field of play.

2)  The officials believed Cowie deliberately stepped off the park

3)  The officials believed Cowie was not behind/level with 2 Rangers players.

4) The officials weren't sure and wanted to discuss what happened.

 

For all scenarios the officials did not act in the way they are trained to do.

[Thomaso]

Aye, but people move. The linesman was looking at a situation where he had to account for the movement of at least four people at a time when a player mis-hit a shot across the goal towards the side he had an obstructed view of.

 

Dress it up any way you like, that's not easy.

 

You dress it up for the linesman any way you like!  A linesman will never get an easier decision!!  He is up with play and could clearly see two Rangers players on the line FFS.

[Thomaso]

I think they decided he had left field hence decision

 

Not about being in line

 

Ya think!   We can come up with all sorts of excuses for that goal being disallowed

[michael_bolton]

You dress it up for the linesman any way you like!  A linesman will never get an easier decision!!  He is up with play and could clearly see two Rangers players on the line FFS.

 

Nonsense. First time I saw the video I thought it was offside. It's just one of these things. Another week it'll go for us.

[DETTY29]

I think they decided he had left field hence decision

 

Not about being in line

To me it's the only explanation now.

 

The goal  appears to have been initially awarded by both.

 

I know they are miked up and there would be an earlier discussion, but Beaton appears to ask a question of the assistant who responds with a one word answer.

 

Potential questions by Beaton:-

 

'Cowie was in front of the defenders when shot comes in?'  Sorry not plausible as the assistant would have raised his flag immediately

 

'Cowie had left field of play and come back on hadn't he?'  Potentially

 

'How can he not be offside, happy for me to disallow goal?'

[RussAsia]

Gallagher is one referee. There are thousands of them.

 

I'm not saying the call was correct, I don't think I've ever said or implied that. I'm just saying I can understand why the linesman got it wrong.

 

'Shafted' implies the linesman deliberately set out to do us over. I'm not convinced that's the case. It was a bad call, but there are thousands of them up and down the country every weekend. I'd rather we just got on with it and made sure we could defend simple cross balls a bit better.

 

I'd say we were shafted.. royally in fact..

 

The Rangers player (Lee Wallace) had his foot on the goal line which means that everyone on the field was onside.. it wasn't a difficult call... it was only difficult for people who were watching it from a bad TV angle.. The linesman was basically in line with it and there is no way whatsoever that he should have called it wrong.. everyone who was active was in his line of sight from the person kicking the ball, to the defender whose foot was on the goal line, to the guy standing 2 yards onside who put the ball in..

 

So now that we have realised that it is a simple straight forward decision we need to find out the reason he got it wrong.. and that's what Hearts should have been doing since Saturday.. let's be honest.. if the Rangers goal from the game at Tynecastle had been actually onside it's all we would have heard about in every paper for 2 weeks.. Our goal which was wrongly called wasn't even brought up in the after match interview..

 

Now we have some quarters trying to muddy the waters and provide excuses.. but they are nonsense and clearly don't apply to this situation..

[Thomaso]

Nonsense. First time I saw the video I thought it was offside. It's just one of these things. Another week it'll go for us.

 

Well, well - what a surprise eh! 

[busby1985]

The linesman 100% never flagged for offside cause Cowie was off the field of play. Having seen the incident loads of times now, the definition of the rule states that he is offside and if we had a video ref then I wouldn't argue the fact. However, the linesman flagged for offside, as in, he believed Cowie to be offside when the ball from Paterson was struck. He was convinced off this by the crowd and or the Rangers players. The ref gave the goal, the linesman gave the goal and we can only judge the decision based on the actions on the day, not the definition of what constatutes offside. The goal should've stood. The issue we should be discussing here is how far behind play the linesman was and again, how bad the officiating was/is. Did we deserve to lose, yes. We didn't play well enough before the incident or after it. However, goals change matches. The crowd would've turned and we would've grown in confidence. These decisions make big, big differences in matches.

[DETTY29]

Nonsense. First time I saw the video I thought it was offside. It's just one of these things. Another week it'll go for us.

 

We tend to follow the path of the ball, the assistant is trained follow the last defender.

 

Taking in to account the lead up play, the save, Djoum winning the ball, it wasn't very difficult for the assistant to track Wallace hence the goal was initially awarded.

 

This can only now be down to the rules around Cowie leaving the pitch and whether the officials have called it correctly in lines with the laws.  If per Dermot Gallagher, Cowie is entitled to become active but the officials believed Cowie stepped off the park on purpose, then it's a terrible judgement.

 

PS - I'm still not convinced Gallagher is correct, but heading more towards 90% the goal should have stood.  Will probably change my mind later.

[RussAsia]

Well, well - what a surprise eh! 

 

Whether you couldn't tell from a camera angle from the HALF WAY LINE is irrelevant..

 

the fact is that the linesmans job is to be in line with the last defender.. Lee Wallace was on the line.. so he should have had the clearest view in Ibrox of the decision..

[Thomaso]

The linesman 100% never flagged for offside cause Cowie was off the field of play. Having seen the incident loads of times now, the definition of the rule states that he is offside and if we had a video ref then I wouldn't argue the fact. However, the linesman flagged for offside, as in, he believed Cowie to be offside when the ball from Paterson was struck. He was convinced off this by the crowd and or the Rangers players. The ref gave the goal, the linesman gave the goal and we can only judge the decision based on the actions on the day, not the definition of what constatutes offside. The goal should've stood. The issue we should be discussing here is how far behind play the linesman was and again, how bad the officiating was/is. Did we deserve to lose, yes. We didn't play well enough before the incident or after it. However, goals change matches. The crowd would've turned and we would've grown in confidence. These decisions make big, big differences in matches.

 

 

[Thomaso]

Whether you couldn't tell from a camera angle from the HALF WAY LINE is irrelevant..

 

the fact is that the linesmans job is to be in line with the last defender.. Lee Wallace was on the line.. so he should have had the clearest view in Ibrox of the decision..

 

CORRECT!!

[DETTY29]

I'd say we were shafted.. royally in fact..

 

The Rangers player (Lee Wallace) had his foot on the goal line which means that everyone on the field was onside.. it wasn't a difficult call... it was only difficult for people who were watching it from a bad TV angle.. The linesman was basically in line with it and there is no way whatsoever that he should have called it wrong.. everyone who was active was in his line of sight from the person kicking the ball, to the defender whose foot was on the goal line, to the guy standing 2 yards onside who put the ball in..

 

So now that we have realised that it is a simple straight forward decision we need to find out the reason he got it wrong.. and that's what Hearts should have been doing since Saturday.. let's be honest.. if the Rangers goal from the game at Tynecastle had been actually onside it's all we would have heard about in every paper for 2 weeks.. Our goal which was wrongly called wasn't even brought up in the after match interview..

 

Now we have some quarters trying to muddy the waters and provide excuses.. but they are nonsense and clearly don't apply to this situation..

Wallace foot doesn't quite touch the line, but if it had when Paterson shoots, then Cowie couldn't possibly off, irrespective of interpretation of 'stepping off field' law.

 

I agree that we should be pushing for an answer.  Problem is that the referees can do no wrong in the eyes of the SFA so we just don't get answers.

 

John Fleming, Beaton, Stevenson, Don Robertson and whoever was the Refereeing Supervisor was, will be in conference tonight before Beaton's report is signed off.  If they have got the decision correct we will here about it soon enough with Daryll Broadfott getting in touch with friendly journos to print the reason behind a correct decision.

 

If the decision is wrong, or the SFA or the referee have interpreted the rules wrongly, we will hear no more about it.  It's one of the once, twice a season events so it will be full on head in sand mode.

[Gambo]

I hope after this all settles down it is pointed out on the training pitch to Paterson that a simple pass to Johnsen and it is 1-0 with no questions to be asked of ref/linesman.

[maroonlegions]

Should be a compliance/accountability officer that refs are answerable to.  After all they are in a job, they are employees and should be answerable to their decision making, Walkers booking for instance .We need much better refs, what about foreign ones . 

[Mikey1874]

Debating it on Sportsound

 

Missed the start. Think it's a former ex ref Charlie something on telephone saying it's definitely a goal.

 

Also saying a point I was thinking - should give the advantage to the attacking team if there is any doubt.

[Greedy_Jambo]

Not one person on sportsound has said it was offside.

 

100% Goal.

[Jammy T]

I hope after this all settles down it is pointed out on the training pitch to Paterson that a simple pass to Johnsen and it is 1-0 with no questions to be asked of ref/linesman.

He played a simple pass to Cowie... in acres of space unmarked onside and 1 yard from goal...

 

[Guess The Crowd]

Debating it on Sportsound

 

Missed the start. Think it's a former ex ref Charlie something on telephone saying it's definitely a goal.

 

Also saying a point I was thinking - should give the advantage to the attacking team if there is any doubt.

Also, Richard Wilson (Rangers fan) explained very clearly why it was a goal, and specifically that Cowie came back on to the field quickly enough for that not to be an issue.

[Mikey1874]

Scott McDonald and ex ref Charlie Richmond saying that could have been real game changer.

[PeterintheRain]

Gallagher is one referee. There are thousands of them.

 

I'm not saying the call was correct, I don't think I've ever said or implied that. I'm just saying I can understand why the linesman got it wrong.

 

'Shafted' implies the linesman deliberately set out to do us over. I'm not convinced that's the case. It was a bad call, but there are thousands of them up and down the country every weekend. I'd rather we just got on with it and made sure we could defend simple cross balls a bit better.

 

   Why are you here, on a forum for Hearts supporters when you are clearly an apologist for the Glasgow scum?

[DETTY29]

Richmond also suggesting that it was clear retribution by Beaton to book Walker.

 

Word of caution - Richmond is no lover of the SFA.

[OmiyaHearts]

After reading the rule about it, I think he has to be off? He can't touch the ball in the 18 yard box without being offside.

 

Unless I'm reading it wrong!

[sam?]

After reading the rule about it, I think he has to be off? He can't touch the ball in the 18 yard box without being offside.

 

Unless I'm reading it wrong!

 

his momentum took him off the pitch therefore he is allowed to come back on, according to the sky sports ref today

[John]

as per usual, the SFA have an opportunity to clear up a contentious match decision, but say nowt

[jack D and coke]

Couldnt care less if it was onside or not.

 

We were completely shite.

 

I hope Cathro can stick a pair of balls on some of them, too many not up for the fight.

We were absolutely pony. Ibrox has long been a dreadful place for us and I don't think we could've complained too much had it been 4 or 5 on Saturday.

The goal could've possibly changed the game though. It's a bugger....

[Don Dan]

Have the awfishals ever explained why the goal was disallowed? The fans (us the paying ones of the game) deserve to know.

[DETTY29]

Have the awfishals ever explained why the goal was disallowed? The fans (us the paying ones of the game) deserve to know.

I think we got the 'unofficial' line from the SFA by Richard Wilson on Sportsound tonight, no doubt via Daryl Broadfoot, ex journalist and now Head of SFA Media and Communications.

 

Cowie was allowed to come back on as a new phase of play and was around 1 metre from the line.  When Paterson kicked the ball, Lee Wallace was also a metre from the line.  He may also have said that ref can only give decision if 100% sure.  (that may have been a comment about something else)

 

i.e goal should have stood, but it's a real difficult call. 

 

Sorry but:-

 

1.  I can't find anything about a second phase of play re re-entering the field of play.

2.  Wallace's foot was no more than 6 inches from the line when ball kicked.  Eventually Wilson / Scott Macdonald conceded to half a metre.

3. It took Richmond and Macdonald to say that surely if dubious benefit of doubt is meant to go with attacker.

4. Still no reasoning as to why an experienced FIFA assistant referee is standing around 15 yards away from where he should be when the discussion with Beaton took place.  (Richmond reckoned Stevenson was saying to Beaton 'Offside, Offside, Offside).  If so certain he should not have moved from the corner flag until the discussion took place.

[Don Dan]

I think we got the 'unofficial' line from Richard Wilson on Sportsound tonight, no doubt via Daryl Broadfoot, ex journalist and now Head of SFA Media and Communications on behalf of the SFA

 

Cowie was allowed to come back on as a new phase of play and was around 1 metre from the line. When Paterson kicked the ball, Lee Wallace was also a metre from the line. He may also have said that ref can only give decision if 100% sure. (that may have been a comment about something else)

 

i.e goal should have stood, but it's a real difficult call.

 

Sorry but:-

 

1. I can't find anything about a second phase of play re re-entering the field of play.

2. Wallace's foot was no more than 6 inches from the line when ball kicked. Eventually Wilson / Scott Macdonald conceded to half a metre.

3. It took Richmond and Macdonald to say that surely if dubious benefit of doubt is meant to go with attacker.

4. Still no reasoning as to why an experienced FIFA assistant referee is standing around 15 yards away from where he should be when the discussion with Beaton took place. (Richmond reckoned Stevenson was saying to Beaton 'Offside, Offside, Offside). If so certain he should not have moved from the corner flag until the discussion took place.

All wrong by what you've said. Absolutely no excuses can be offered for either the disallowed goal or the baffling yellow to Walker. The can over turn the yellow which I'm sure will happen but nothing can be done about the goal. Instances like that they should consult technology. 4th official views the various angles and makes a judgement call. Simple really.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stirlingshirejambo]

I hope after this all settles down it is pointed out on the training pitch to Paterson that a simple pass to Johnsen and it is 1-0 with no questions to be asked of ref/linesman.

Did you see open goal Johnsen missed at Ross county or one he blazed over bar on Saturday

Might have been better option but no guarantee of a goal