'Offside' goal

[Winston Ingram]

There is another potential scenario here: the linesman just got it wrong in the sense that he believed Cowie was offside, regardless of leaving field. The officials could have been given an extra layer of wriggle room here that doesn't actually exist. 

 

Decisions like this are commonly wrong where a defender is on goalline/level with goalie as linesmen don't seem to recognise it as two players. 

[DETTY29]

There is another potential scenario here: the linesman just got it wrong in the sense that he believed Cowie was offside, regardless of leaving field. The officials could have been given an extra layer of wriggle room here that doesn't actually exist. 

 

Decisions like this are commonly wrong where a defender is on goalline/level with goalie as linesmen don't seem to recognise it as two players. 

So why doesn't he

 

1.  Raise his flag immediately a couple of steps from the corner flag.

2.  Not move from the corner flag, until a discussion has taken place with Beaton.

 

TV evidence isn't conclusive but where he is when the players claim, although Foderingham claims, then is resigned to the goal being given.  When Beaton eventually speaks to him, he is around 15 yards from where he should be.

[Tommy Brown]

So why doesn't he

 

1.  Raise his flag immediately a couple of steps from the corner flag.

2.  Not move from the corner flag, until a discussion has taken place with Beaton.

 

TV evidence isn't conclusive but where he is when the players claim, although Foderingham claims, then is resigned to the goal being given.  When Beaton eventually speaks to him, he is around 15 yards from where he should be.

Unbelievable, that some on here are looking for an excuse for this official.

There is none. He ****ed up royally, compounding it to showing him to be a cheat.

 

He allowed the goal, if he thought he was offside, he would have known straight away and flagged.

[Uncle Buck]

Got explained this today and it is frustrating but kind of makes sense.

[colinmaroon]

Foggy day!

 

Come to a T-Junction; can't see past the end of the bonnet.  Do I turn left or right?  Tough call.

 

Turn left; right onto a level crossing and get pulverised by a train!

 

Lesson:

 

If you can't see, you shouldn't be driving!

[DETTY29]

Got explained this today and it is frustrating but kind of makes sense.

I'd be intrigued what the explanation was and who told you. 

 

Outwith standard offside of 2 players between you and the goal line and a genuine assistant error (but this doesn't stack up because Stevenson is 15 yards out of position to have given the basic offside), then the key extracts from the updated rules introduced in June this year:-

 

Page 37 - A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement, does not commit an infringement

(This allows Cowie to come back on and be involved as standard)

 

Page 141 - 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 thehalfway line  and it is outside their penalty area, the player shall be considered to be positioned on the goal line point 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.

(This allows a player who is concerned they will be offside if the ball comes near him and a team mate can still retrieve the ball, the opportunity to de-risk the match officials giving offside against him)

 

Another alternative is that Stevenson has initially awarded the goal but Beaton questions whether Cowie has 'stepped off the field of play; to which Stevenson confirms and Beaton has wrongly assessed Cowie's actions.

 

We should leave it.  It appears Rangers were as dominant on Saturday as we were at Tynecastle and deserved their win, but why should Scottish match officials get away with this can do no wrong attitude and  bunker mentality? 

[jimbojambo]

Has Beaton apologised to Cathro yet? Seem to recall he apologised Ro Rodgers at half time when he got a decision wrong. He shouldn't ref us again if he is carrying over grudges from previous matches. That referees in Scotland can do this openly with No recriminations is a joke.

[We_are_the_Hearts]

Has Beaton apologised to Cathro yet? Seem to recall he apologised Ro Rodgers at half time when he got a decision wrong. He shouldn't ref us again if he is carrying over grudges from previous matches. That referees in Scotland can do this openly with No recriminations is a joke.

The boy is a complete ******. Remember the game against Killy last season which he just ruined the game. Then decided to just laugh at the support for complaining about the stop/start game he was creating. Another thing that is wrong with Scottish football, officials who don't know the game and are fast tracked cause they are arse lickers.

[Mikey1874]

the key extracts from the updated rules introduced in June this year:-

 

Page 37 - A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement, does not commit an infringement

(This allows Cowie to come back on and be involved as standard)

 

Another alternative is that Stevenson has initially awarded the goal but Beaton questions whether Cowie has 'stepped off the field of play; to which Stevenson confirms and Beaton has wrongly assessed Cowie's actions.

 

 

Selective quoting the longer post these are the key points

 

How decision happened and why it is a really bad one i.e. not knowing the rules properly

[Dallas Green]

He was onside. The still picture proves that.

 

At the time and on video footage it's hard to tell, so the linesman has made a call. The wrong call as it turns out as he was probably too shit scared to let a possibile dodgy goal stand.

 

That goal would have completely changed the game, Rangers were playing better than us and we were poor but a goal can change these things.

[Mikey1874]

He was onside. The still picture proves that.

 

At the time and on video footage it's hard to tell, so the linesman has made a call. The wrong call as it turns out as he was probably too shit scared to let a possibile dodgy goal stand.

 

That goal would have completely changed the game, Rangers were playing better than us and we were poor but a goal can change these things.

Definitely could change the game. Hearts weather early storm including Miller miss (which reminded me of Templeton's miss in the 2-1 game), score with first attack. Hearts settle down and start to take control.

 

Rangers got encouragement from the incident

[XB52]

having watched the highlights again I have to say, by the rule quoted earlier in this thread, Cowie was offside. You can see him go over the bye line and then wait for a couple of seconds before coming back on to the pitch. My interpretation of that is he is now counted as offside until the period of play is over, it doesn't matter what rangers player(s) are between him and the goal when he hits it. As I say, only my interpretation and I very much doubt it would have been called offside at the other end, but it does appear to be the correct call  

[DETTY29]

having watched the highlights again I have to say, by the rule quoted earlier in this thread, Cowie was offside. You can see him go over the bye line and then wait for a couple of seconds before coming back on to the pitch. My interpretation of that is he is now counted as offside until the period of play is over, it doesn't matter what rangers player(s) are between him and the goal when he hits it. As I say, only my interpretation and I very much doubt it would have been called offside at the other end, but it does appear to be the correct call  

 

I disagree

 

Players don't put brakes on immediately and then sprint back on too pitch automatically.  They will take a second to catch their breath and thoughts.

 

I don't see Cowie making a conscious effort to walk / take a 'step' off the field to become deliberately inactive.

 

[Lincon Premier]

Even if quoting a bizarre rule he was still onside as Wallace was also on the goal line when Paterson kicked the ball. The still pictures show Wallace had moved but at the instant the ball was kicked he was covering Cowie.

[Justin Z]

I disagree

 

Players don't put brakes on immediately and then sprint back on too pitch automatically.  They will take a second to catch their breath and thoughts.

 

I don't see Cowie making a conscious effort to walk / take a 'step' off the field to become deliberately inactive.

 

This is my feeling also.  The laws are meant to be applied with common sense.  A player who has been carried outside the field boundaries through normal play, then taking a moment to gather his bearings, should not be flagged for committing an infringement as a result.

[DETTY29]

He was onside. The still picture proves that.

 

At the time and on video footage it's hard to tell, so the linesman has made a call. The wrong call as it turns out as he was probably too shit scared to let a possibile dodgy goal stand.

 

That goal would have completely changed the game, Rangers were playing better than us and we were poor but a goal can change these things.

It's ok to use the still if the offside is given for the 'in line' call.

 

But as long as the assistant referee is in the correct position, and there is no reason for him not to be as it wasn't a quick breakaway, plus the 'stramash but when Paterson kicks the ball Wallace is virtually on the line.  This should be a fairly easy decision to make.  If he has made a genuine call, why does the conversation with Beaton take place 15 yards from where Stevenson should have been standing?

 

There is dubiety as to whether it is for the line call or Cowie leaving the field of play, so we need to look at the full video.

 

We won't get an answer because the way the whole scenario has played out is too far detached from what the match officials should be doing as part of the job.

[gorgie rd eh11]

 Cheated at Ibrox, what's the world coming to.

[Charlie-Brown]

The facts are the decision was given in Rangers favour at Ibrox. Walkers booking for "divimg" Miko booked twice and sent off for "diving" inside 20 minutes coming on as a sub.

Most bent place in Scottish football for over a century.

[DETTY29]

The facts are the decision was given in Rangers favour at Ibrox. Walkers booking for "divimg" Miko booked twice and sent off for "diving" inside 20 minutes coming on as a sub.

Most bent place in Scottish football for over a century.

We were well beaten, but whatever the reason for the offside call between the 2 decisions, we would have to be off our collective rockers not to realise under the same scenario, the goal would have been given at the other end without a moments thought.

[RussAsia]

Definitely could change the game. Hearts weather early storm including Miller miss (which reminded me of Templeton's miss in the 2-1 game), score with first attack. Hearts settle down and start to take control.

 

Rangers got encouragement from the incident

 

We'd weathered the storm and were actually gaining the upper hand when that goal went in..

 

Like you said Rangers took encouragement from the situation and went forward with even greater purpose whereas some Hearts players retreated back into their shells.. Another point could be it would have given us something to defend..

We may have still lost.. nobody has a crystal ball.. but a goal for us would have given them a different proposition to think about and they may have been the ones retreating into their shells.

[aussieh]

having watched the highlights again I have to say, by the rule quoted earlier in this thread, Cowie was offside. You can see him go over the bye line and then wait for a couple of seconds before coming back on to the pitch. My interpretation of that is he is now counted as offside until the period of play is over, it doesn't matter what rangers player(s) are between him and the goal when he hits it. As I say, only my interpretation and I very much doubt it would have been called offside at the other end, but it does appear to be the correct call

If players now knock the ball past the opposition player and decides to run out of play to go past the opposition player, its a free kick?.

Well that's what they're now saying. When was this upgraged, at 4.50 on Saturday?

[Riccarton3]

This goal wasn't even mentioned on the BBC text of the game. No mention of a disallowed goal despite it being obviously contentious. Extraordinary.

[Dazzle]

Video replay is coming, it is inevitable. It was a perfectly good goal, Cowie was not offside. 

[Bring Back Paulo Sergio]

He was onside. The still picture proves that.

 

At the time and on video footage it's hard to tell, so the linesman has made a call. The wrong call as it turns out as he was probably too shit scared to let a possibile dodgy goal stand.

 

That goal would have completely changed the game, Rangers were playing better than us and we were poor but a goal can change these things.

Beaton made the call not the linesman

[Dallas Green]

Beaton made the call not the linesman

My point still stands whether it was the linesman or the referee.

[colinmaroon]

This goal wasn't even mentioned on the BBC text of the game. No mention of a disallowed goal despite it being obviously contentious. Extraordinary.

 

 

For the Scottish Beeb, sorry to say, just another day at the office!

 

They are a mix of incompetence and bias, just like Scottish Officials, in fact.

[jack D and coke]

having watched the highlights again I have to say, by the rule quoted earlier in this thread, Cowie was offside. You can see him go over the bye line and then wait for a couple of seconds before coming back on to the pitch. My interpretation of that is he is now counted as offside until the period of play is over, it doesn't matter what rangers player(s) are between him and the goal when he hits it. As I say, only my interpretation and I very much doubt it would have been called offside at the other end, but it does appear to be the correct call

Aye the more I've watched it at normal speed I think the linesman might've just about called it right. I think I'd have been raging if Rangers had had a goal like that stand.

On reflection we got exactly what we deserved when from the game.

[john brownlee]

Aye the more I've watched it at normal speed I think the linesman might've just about called it right. I think I'd have been raging if Rangers had had a goal like that stand.

On reflection we got exactly what we deserved when from the game.

come on Jack we all know the four controversial decisions in a the game went in rantics favour, Walker's booking , holt free kick , "the goal" and Kitchen head butting the Huns elbow.

 

Btw you would be raging 'cause it would have stood if it had been at the other end, as been the case many times before.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jack D and coke]

come on Jack we all know the four controversial decisions in a the game went in rantics favour, Walker's booking , holt free kick , "the goal" and Kitchen head butting the Huns elbow.

 

Btw you would be raging 'cause it would have stood if it had been at the other end, as been the case many times before.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm not disputing those mate we all know what it's like through there...

I dunno....I've watched that goal a lot now and I'd have been fuming had that stood at the other end...despite me thinking it might've.

Had we played better I'd have had more truck with it but as we played so poorly it's not bothering me quite so much.

We were awful against a bog standard, no in fact a pish poor Rangers side and that bothers me more.

Why we're so poor away from tynecastle is a mystery to me. It's not a new thing either it's been as long as I can remember watching us.

[Hearts_fan]

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.

 

Paterson played a perfect pass to Cowie, which was vindicated by Cowie scoring the tap-in.

 

It seems crazy to want to deflect attention from the refereeing mistake onto CP when he perfectly executed a winning pass.

[DETTY29]

I'm not disputing those mate we all know what it's like through there...

I dunno....I've watched that goal a lot now and I'd have been fuming had that stood at the other end...despite me thinking it might've.

Had we played better I'd have had more truck with it but as we played so poorly it's not bothering me quite so much.

We were awful against a bog standard, no in fact a pish poor Rangers side and that bothers me more.

Why we're so poor away from tynecastle is a mystery to me. It's not a new thing either it's been as long as I can remember watching us.

Sorry, not sure I can agree.

 

It was a legal goal that should have stood. I might have been annoyed at the time by making a broad assumption that as the scorer was so close to the goal, he would be offside, but is looking more likely that the assistant ref initially gave the goal, (I'm going by Foderingham's actions and the positioning of the assistant ref when the discussion took place) but Beaton persuaded him the decision should be changed.

 

If it was for 'stepping off' the pitch, there would only be a small number of people in the stadium who knew of the law although Beaton would have been one of them, so few people could have been angered if the goal stood.

 

That goal would have been awarded at the other end without question.

 

But the point about our away form of course stands.

[Hearts_fan]

In this kind of context, defending the referees while blaming the outcome on Hearts' own performance is tantamount to Stockholm syndrome. I'm saying that because I've read one or two comments such as 'we played badly anyway' (I'm sorry, that's irrelevant ? if the game would have finished 2-1 to Rangers, then that's the result that should have stood. Our goal difference would have been rendered minus 1 instead of minus 2 (coupled with Rangers' plus 1 instead of plus 2).

 

The arse cheeks are protected at other teams' expense. To any rationally-minded observer that much is surely beyond doubt.

 

It's not Hearts' and the rest's fault. We are the one's getting screwed out of points, goal differences and player appearances.

 

It is ok to say "this is not our fault". It's ok to go after the perpetrators. 

 

I'd go further and say in the interests of sporting integrity, it is incumbent upon those affected that they pursue the truth.

 

To keep sweeping the inconvenient truth under the carpet for fear of being called 'paranoid' is, I'm sorry to say, exactly what they want us to do.

 

When members of our own support try to justify the bias that exists (e.g. the michael bolton character being one that I can think of), it plays into the hands of our opponents.

[D'Jambo]

If the ball left the penalty box he would be on-side. if it didn't he'd be off-side.

 

It didn't, so he is assumed to be on the line in an offside position until the ball is cleared towards the halfway line and leaves the box.

 

No Goal....

 

Had it been at the other end, who knows, but we all have our doubts. How many of us would have known this strange ruling?

 

Actually by the rules of the game he should have been booked for trying to gain an advantage.....go figure 

[jack D and coke]

In this kind of context, defending the referees while blaming the outcome on Hearts' own performance is tantamount to Stockholm syndrome. I'm saying that because I've read one or two comments such as 'we played badly anyway' (I'm sorry, that's irrelevant ? if the game would have finished 2-1 to Rangers, then that's the result that should have stood. Our goal difference would have been rendered minus 1 instead of minus 2 (coupled with Rangers' plus 1 instead of plus 2).

 

The arse cheeks are protected at other teams' expense. To any rationally-minded observer that much is surely beyond doubt.

 

It's not Hearts' and the rest's fault. We are the one's getting screwed out of points, goal differences and player appearances.

 

It is ok to say "this is not our fault". It's ok to go after the perpetrators.

 

I'd go further and say in the interests of sporting integrity, it is incumbent upon those affected that they pursue the truth.

 

To keep sweeping the inconvenient truth under the carpet for fear of being called 'paranoid' is, I'm sorry to say, exactly what they want us to do.

 

When members of our own support try to justify the bias that exists (e.g. the michael bolton character being one that I can think of), it plays into the hands of our opponents.

I agree with the jist of what you're saying and believe me it's not Stockholm syndrome on my part, absolutely no fecking danger.

Football, unless we bring in video technology is always going to be full of these contentious decisions.

[Mikey1874]

Former referees Dermot Gallagher and Charlie Richmond referring to FIFA changes in rule both said goal should have stood.

[Hearts_fan]

I agree with the jist of what you're saying and believe me it's not Stockholm syndrome on my part, absolutely no fecking danger.

Football, unless we bring in video technology is always going to be full of these contentious decisions.

 

That's fair enough, and I'm not levelling a diagnosis of Stockholm syndrome to everyone who thinks differently to me! I'm just saying I think it's out there. Sometimes we can't see the wood for the trees.

Clearly refereeing isn't an exact science, and human errors are always liable to happen if there's no means to instantly corroborate events.

 

However, the idea of human error can very easily be used as a means to muddy the waters and to distract attention from an underlying pattern.

 

In the case of Scottish football and the apparent institutional favouritism towards the arse cheeks (and Scott Brown's lack of yellow cards in particular if you like), there is a very clear pattern of disproportionate leniency and punishment involving the arse cheeks and their opponents. I don't have the statistics because I have other commitments, but it's an independent study that's begging to be carried out.

 

I'd be in favour of any practical measures that can be taken that would deliver the truth to the game in Scotland. If video technology works, then the game must find the money to pay for it. If goal line technology can be delivered then it must happen.

 

A level playing field is absolutely integral to the future of the game in Scotland. Otherwise fan numbers will continue to dwindle (thankfully for us, Hearts is an exception to that particular pattern).

[Mikey1874]

Some good debate

 

I think you need to be tougher and stronger so no one including referees messes with you

 

Works for me and seems to have done pretty well for Celtic and Rangers

 

Refs do need training on not being influenced clearly

[The Treasurer]

I'm not disputing those mate we all know what it's like through there...

I dunno....I've watched that goal a lot now and I'd have been fuming had that stood at the other end...despite me thinking it might've.

Had we played better I'd have had more truck with it but as we played so poorly it's not bothering me quite so much.

We were awful against a bog standard, no in fact a pish poor Rangers side and that bothers me more.

Why we're so poor away from tynecastle is a mystery to me. It's not a new thing either it's been as long as I can remember watching us.

Agreed we ended up deservedly losing, however in the period leading up to Cowie's "goal" we were starting to get into the game and there's no doubt in my mind the goal being chalked off had a negative impact on the team as a whole.

Yes they should be able to shrug it off and get on with the game but mentally it's a blow to know you've had a perfectly good goad disallowed.

[Mikey1874]

The whole message in general is Rangers are coming back

 

Bringing the refs with them

[DETTY29]

If the ball left the penalty box he would be on-side. if it didn't he'd be off-side.

 

It didn't, so he is assumed to be on the line in an offside position until the ball is cleared towards the halfway line and leaves the box.

 

No Goal....

 

Had it been at the other end, who knows, but we all have our doubts. How many of us would have known this strange ruling?

 

Actually by the rules of the game he should have been booked for trying to gain an advantage.....go figure

 

That wouldn't be my understanding of the law.

 

Gallagher and Richmond both concur with my view that as part of the play in going for the ball at the near post he has left the field as part of the movement and is entitled to come back on and be in play as standard.

 

If a player is worried he will be called offside when he isn't intending on influencing play, he is entitled to step off or stay off the field. If he decides to come back on to the field of play until the ball leaves the box heading towards half way line, he will be considered as positioned at the point he left the field of play.

 

If Beaton has decided Cowie has stepped off the field on purpose so as not to be active, and this is the reason the goal was chalked off, yes Cowie should have been booked for gaining an advantage.

 

None of the 2 match officials actions as the whole thing played out make any sense.

[Shaggy2]

Agreed we ended up deservedly losing, however in the period leading up to Cowie's "goal" we were starting to get into the game and there's no doubt in my mind the goal being chalked off had a negative impact on the team as a whole.

Yes they should be able to shrug it off and get on with the game but mentally it's a blow to know you've had a perfectly good goad disallowed.

What shouldn't be forgotten is that in our three recent victories against them, we didn't really start any on the front foot. We let Rangers huff and puff for 20-30mins before coming into the game ourselves as a result of a game changing moment (namely Temps' sitter, Smith's red card or Callum's long throw which allowed Bjorn to force a good save).

 

That game last week could easily have turned into a comfortable Hearts win if the goal had stood and nothing can convince me it should not have. Major turning point, along with Walker's dead leg from getting kicked up and doon the place!

[Mikey1874]

What shouldn't be forgotten is that in our three recent victories against them, we didn't really start any on the front foot. We let Rangers huff and puff for 20-30mins before coming into the game ourselves as a result of a game changing moment (namely Temps' sitter, Smith's red card or Callum's long throw which allowed Bjorn to force a good save).

 

That game last week could easily have turned into a comfortable Hearts win if the goal had stood and nothing can convince me it should not have. Major turning point, along with Walker's dead leg from getting kicked up and doon the place!

When Kenny Miller missed that chance - just like Templeton's - I thought "here we go".

 

So yes, agree

[Shaggy2]

When Kenny Miller missed that chance - just like Templeton's - I thought "here we go".

 

So yes, agree

Good point, and even the most biased commentator on Earth conceded we were coming into the match around the time the "goal" went in.

[jack D and coke]

Good point, and even the most biased commentator on Earth conceded we were coming into the match around the time the "goal" went in.

I watched the whole game and tbh I can't think of any spell at all where we came into it, we were bullied all over the park for me and added to some poor performances it was an all round bad day. Had it finished 4 or 5 we could've had little complaint imo.

Had that goal stood then it's an entirely different kettle of fish of that I absolutely agree but just by the amount of debate with some claiming it's a perfectly legitimate goal and others saying not sums up it certainly isn't a clear cut decision.