Offside law

[Tommy Brown]

Just watched MotD and everyone pissed off that Wolves denied an equaliser.

Gary O'Neil in particular, obviously.

 

In a similar Circumstances to our recent one at Ross Co, an unstoppable header (this time) from 6 yard line was denied as a Wolves player was standing a few feet in front of the keeper.

 

As far as I am concerned, O'Neill's criticism of the ref was OTT (will try and dig out quotes from him). The ref was correct as the law stands.

 

My conclusion, annoying as it is, seeing great goals like Kingsley's chopped off. The coaches ire should be directed at their player's decision to stand in or be caught in an offside position.

 

 

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil says the decision to disallow a last-gasp equaliser for his team against West Ham was "possibly the worst decision I have ever seen".

 

"It was a terrible decision," O'Neil said. "It is possibly the worst decision I have ever seen.

"If your knowledge and understanding of the game is really poor, you could reach the conclusion that is offside.

"If you are a Premier League official working at the highest level, I would be really disappointed if you thought that was offside. The only way that can be offside is if he stops Fabianski's ability to move or impedes his vision. Only the referee and VAR think that could possibly be offside."

Edited April 7 by Tommy Brown

[jamboinglasgow]

Watched MotD last night and was surprised how they were all agreed that the goal should not stand. Their argument was that the keeper could still dive and could still see most of it. But just like was pointed out about Shankland on the Ross County keeper, why was the player standing in front of the keeper, to put them off and put pressure on them. 

 

It also is a minor point but the panel on MotD was three former strikers talking about it, I think if a former keeper had been one of the pundits their view would be completely opposite, as I feel strikers see decisions like this based on how they would want it when they were player (i.e. attacking played allowed.)

[casper]

I saw that. I could hardly believe what I was hearing from pundits.

The Wolves guy was standing there with the sole purpose of blocking off/distracting the keeper and that's exactly what he did.

Wright said something like - if the keeper can't see the ball because of the player he should move to a position where he can - .

If he has to do that to see round a offside player then that player must be interfering with play.

For me the correct decision was made to give it offside.

 

[JimmyCant]

Haven’t seen the ‘goal’ but if it’s similar to the Shankland/kingsley one there is no argument to be had. It’s offside 

[ArcticJambo]

Was it a corner? Seems like it in the Sky Sports highlights segment I saw.

 

I assume he was very marginally in an offside position as soon as his team mate headers towards goal, and additionally not played-on as the West Ham defender steps back, looks close on the clip from behind the goal (like why that clip!)?

 

Obviously can't be offside from a corner. Keeper can see it all the way from the minute if comes off the boot at the corner to the minute it comes off the head. If it's subjective then you can subjectively say the keeper is never in a month of Saturdays getting anywhere near it.

 

Corrupt is my first thought, attention-seeking at the very least.  Look at us, we're all clever, lets make it about us, the VAR team. Utter welts, the lot of them. I can guarantee not a single West Ham player would have had an issue with it, in fact 99.9% of football fans the world over would simply wiggo that decision.

[John Findlay]

28 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

Was it a corner? Seems like it in the Sky Sports highlights segment I saw.

 

I assume he was very marginally in an offside position as soon as his team mate headers towards goal, and additionally not played-on as the West Ham defender steps back, looks close on the clip from behind the goal (like why that clip!)?

 

Obviously can't be offside from a corner. Keeper can see it all the way from the minute if comes off the boot at the corner to the minute it comes off the head. If it's subjective then you can subjectively say the keeper is never in a month of Saturdays getting anywhere near it.

 

Corrupt is my first thought, attention-seeking at the very least.  Look at us, we're all clever, lets make it about us, the VAR team. Utter welts, the lot of them. I can guarantee not a single West Ham player would have had an issue with it, in fact 99.9% of football fans the world over would simply wiggo that decision.

You can be offside from a corner. You cannot be offside from a bye kick or throw in.

I have to admit if I had been the ref then I would have let the goal stand.

West Ham goalie was never saving it, even if there wasn't someone in front of him.

[Macros]

You cannot be offside from a corner

[Tommy Brown]

As said by other posters above.

The player was there to distract the GK.

He left himself in an offside position as the header went in. This offside position only then came into play as he was in the line of vision of the GK to ball.

It is offside as the rule stands.

Very tough, but correct.

 

Edited April 7 by Tommy Brown

[Dunks]

22 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

You can be offside from a corner. 

 

[Tommy Brown]

31 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

You can be offside from a corner. You cannot be offside from a bye kick or throw in.

I have to admit if I had been the ref then I would have let the goal stand.

West Ham goalie was never saving it, even if there wasn't someone in front of him.

 

[Fozzyonthefence]

27 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

You can be offside from a corner. You cannot be offside from a bye kick or throw in.

I have to admit if I had been the ref then I would have let the goal stand.

West Ham goalie was never saving it, even if there wasn't someone in front of him.

You wouldn’t remain a ref for long if you just decided to disregard the laws of the game!  Under the current laws it was offside all day long.  Harsh but them’s the rules.  Similar to the Shankland one but probably even more similar to the McTominay free kick v Spain in the sense that the offside player was very close to the player.  The keeper on all 3 occasions was never saving any of them but that’s irrelevant and it astonishes me how so called expert pundits can be so ignorant of the laws of the game at times.  
 

For O’Neil to say that’s the worst decision he has ever seen was ridiculous and he should get punished by the authorities.  I’m also sure when they do that ref watch thing the ex ref will confirm it was the correct decision.

[Fozzyonthefence]

21 minutes ago, Macros said:

 

Edited April 7 by Fozzyonthefence

[ArcticJambo]

A player is entitled to their space on the pitch, that player if he stands in front of the keeper at the corner is not offside until another player touches the ball. Both the player judged to be offside and the keeper were going the same way until the ball was headed. What Wright says is correct, the keeper had no obligation to follow the 'offside' player, he gambled and got it wrong. It's a nonsense decision.

 

Was it actually deemed offside by way of the lines? I ask because I didn't see the game, nor did I see any reference to them, or was it on any highlights I saw?  I assume so as there's absolutely no other way he can be called off in that situation, there really isn't. Surely? Anybody?

[ArcticJambo]

This thread is mental!

[kingantti1874]

MOTD - if the keeper can’t see the ball he should move. Unanimously disagreed with the decision and borderline laughed at the refereeing. 

 

That was a million times worse than the shanks decision.  Which clearly was in no way interfering or in the keeps line of sight at the moment the free kick was stuck. 

[Tommy Brown]

31 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

This thread is mental!

Only your view and John's error disagrees.

I doubt we are all mental, just understand that a ruling has determined and upheld by the ref.

 

 

[Tommy Brown]

37 minutes ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

You wouldn’t remain a ref for long if you just decided to disregard the laws of the game!  Under the current laws it was offside all day long.  Harsh but them’s the rules.  Similar to the Shankland one but probably even more similar to the McTominay free kick v Spain in the sense that the offside player was very close to the player.  The keeper on all 3 occasions was never saving any of them but that’s irrelevant and it astonishes me how so called expert pundits can be so ignorant of the laws of the game at times.  
 

For O’Neil to say that’s the worst decision he has ever seen was ridiculous and he should get punished by the authorities.  I’m also sure when they do that ref watch thing the ex ref will confirm it was the correct decision.

Good post that sums up the situation.

@ArcticJambo take note 

[Fozzyonthefence]

32 minutes ago, kingantti1874 said:

MOTD - if the keeper can’t see the ball he should move. Unanimously disagreed with the decision and borderline laughed at the refereeing. 

 

That was a million times worse than the shanks decision.  Which clearly was in no way interfering or in the keeps line of sight at the moment the free kick was stuck. 

The guy was literally standing offside a few feet in front of the keeper directly in the line between him and the “scorer”.  It’s the very definition of offside under the current laws and anyone thinking it should be allowed is suggesting the ref / VAR turn a blind eye to the laws they’re supposed to be upholding.  
 

I’ll guarantee that refs in England won’t be too impressed with O’Neil or the ignorant pundits.  Mind you one was Ian Wright, he’s a ****ing moron. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

59 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

A player is entitled to their space on the pitch, that player if he stands in front of the keeper at the corner is not offside until another player touches the ball. Both the player judged to be offside and the keeper were going the same way until the ball was headed. What Wright says is correct, the keeper had no obligation to follow the 'offside' player, he gambled and got it wrong. It's a nonsense decision.

 

Was it actually deemed offside by way of the lines? I ask because I didn't see the game, nor did I see any reference to them, or was it on any highlights I saw?  I assume so as there's absolutely no other way he can be called off in that situation, there really isn't. Surely? Anybody?

Disagree.  If someone is standing in an offside position obstructing the keeper’s view (which he was) the keeper has no obligation to move.  The player that should move is the one standing in an offside position - why is he there other than to gain an advantage?  
 

I don’t think they needed to draw lines, he was clearly off.  To be fair, the Shankland one was worse in the sense there was absolutely no reason for him to be there whereas the Wolves guy was just caught or maybe a bit lazy following a corner. 
 

And Ian Wright is a clown.  How he continually gets a gig as a pundit is baffling.  The keeper wasn’t following the offside player he was just trying to take up what he thought would be his best position to save a header.

Edited April 7 by Fozzyonthefence

[Pasquale for King]

2 hours ago, Tommy Brown said:

Just watched MotD and everyone pissed off that Wolves denied an equaliser.

Gary O'Neil in particular, obviously.

 

In a similar Circumstances to our recent one at Ross Co, an unstoppable header (this time) from 6 yard line was denied as a Wolves player was standing a few feet in front of the keeper.

 

As far as I am concerned, O'Neill's criticism of the ref was OTT (will try and dig out quotes from him). The ref was correct as the law stands.

 

My conclusion, annoying as it is, seeing great goals like Kingsley's chopped off. The coaches ire should be directed at their player's decision to stand in or be caught in an offside position.

 

 

Wolves boss Gary O'Neil says the decision to disallow a last-gasp equaliser for his team against West Ham was "possibly the worst decision I have ever seen".

 

"It was a terrible decision," O'Neil said. "It is possibly the worst decision I have ever seen.

"If your knowledge and understanding of the game is really poor, you could reach the conclusion that is offside.

"If you are a Premier League official working at the highest level, I would be really disappointed if you thought that was offside. The only way that can be offside is if he stops Fabianski's ability to move or impedes his vision. Only the referee and VAR think that could possibly be offside."

Spot on, and both players were trying to obstruct the GK and were acting on instructions, they were where they were told to be and didn’t get out the way quickly enough. 

[Pasquale for King]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

Disagree.  If someone is standing in an offside position obstructing the keeper’s view (which he was) the keeper has no obligation to move.  The player that should move is the one standing in an offside position - why is he there other than to gain an advantage?  
 

I don’t think they needed to draw lines, he was clearly off.  To be fair, the Shankland one was worse in the sense there was absolutely no reason for him to be there whereas the Wolves guy was just caught or maybe a bit lazy following a corner. 
 

And Ian Wright is a clown.  How he continually gets a gig as a pundit is baffling.  The keeper wasn’t following the offside player he was just trying to take up what he thought would be his best decision to save a header.

Spot on, MOTD is just a whingfest these days as guys who played decades ago struggle to understand the rules of todays game.

[Mikey1874]

1 hour ago, ArcticJambo said:

This thread is mental!

 

It's educational (for some people).

[ArcticJambo]

I'll ask again, was it shown that the player given offside was given offside because he was closer to the goal line than the last defender? Simple question.

[John Findlay]

1 hour ago, Fozzyonthefence said:

You wouldn’t remain a ref for long if you just decided to disregard the laws of the game!  Under the current laws it was offside all day long.  Harsh but them’s the rules.  Similar to the Shankland one but probably even more similar to the McTominay free kick v Spain in the sense that the offside player was very close to the player.  The keeper on all 3 occasions was never saving any of them but that’s irrelevant and it astonishes me how so called expert pundits can be so ignorant of the laws of the game at times.  
 

For O’Neil to say that’s the worst decision he has ever seen was ridiculous and he should get punished by the authorities.  I’m also sure when they do that ref watch thing the ex ref will confirm it was the correct decision.

Then why get a ref to go to the VAR screen and make a subjective decision. VAR should have just said no goal, offside.

[Tommy Brown]

2 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

I'll ask again, was it shown that the player given offside was given offside because he was closer to the goal line than the last defender? Simple question.

Obviously he was?

 

He wouldn’t be given offside if he wasn't in an offside position??

[Fozzyonthefence]

Just now, ArcticJambo said:

I'll ask again, was it shown that the player given offside was given offside because he was closer to the goal line than the last defender? Simple question.

Well obviously as that’s how offside works except a player has to be played onside by two players not just the last defender.  If there has been another defender plus the keeper in front of him then he wouldn’t have been offside.   I’m not really sure the point you’re trying to make though?

[Tommy Brown]

1 minute ago, John Findlay said:

Then why get a ref to go to the VAR screen and make a subjective decision. VAR should have just said no goal, offside.

The line of vision is not the call of var.

Var only determine offside.

Anything else is then asking the ref to view the monitor.

Var does not make the ultimate call other than offside.

[part_time_jambo]

5 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

I'll ask again, was it shown that the player given offside was given offside because he was closer to the goal line than the last defender? Simple question.

Simple answer. He wasn't closer to the goal line than the last defender as the keeper was on the line.

[Dia Liom]

I also thought it weird how certain the pundits were, their arguments were nonsensical. If they say the keeper should move, then the attacker is in the line of vision, so potentially offside. They also said no offside by comparing the keeper’s having to move to get a better sight/position to a striker having to move to be able to win the ball - wtf? Bizarre

[Fozzyonthefence]

8 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Then why get a ref to go to the VAR screen and make a subjective decision. VAR should have just said no goal, offside.

Wrong.  VAR cannot make subjective decisions so they correctly asked the ref to view the screen.  Only the ref can decide on a subjective offside.  If it is a “normal” offside, i.e. where the goalscorer is offside then that is not subjective and VAR makes the decision without referee involvement. 

[John Findlay]

5 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

The line of vision is not the call of var.

Var only determine offside.

Anything else is then asking the ref to view the monitor.

Var does not make the ultimate call other than offside.

He didn't block the keeper's vision as the player who headed the goal was not directly in front of the player who was in front of the goalkeeper. The keeper could see everything. The keeper got away with one as far as I am concerned.

[Fozzyonthefence]

Just now, John Findlay said:

He didn't block the keeper's vision as the player who headed the goal was not directly in front of the player who was in front of the goalkeeper. The keeper could see everything. The keeper got away with one as far as I am concerned.

He actually was. You could draw a straight line between the 3 of them. 

[milky_26]

14 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Then why get a ref to go to the VAR screen and make a subjective decision. VAR should have just said no goal, offside.

the decision the ref would have been called to make is whether the player was interferring with play, if determined he was not the offside would not have been given. 

[ArcticJambo]

9 minutes ago, Tommy Brown said:

Obviously he was?

 

He wouldn’t be given offside if he wasn't in an offside position??

I don't understand your answer, Tommy. Did they give lines to prove he was offside when his teammate made contact with the ball? Just answer that, it's simple.

 

 

Remember folks, it's a corner you cannot be offside from a corner.

[ArcticJambo]

Just now, milky_26 said:

the decision the ref would have been called to make is whether the player was interferring with play, if determined he was not the offside would not have been given. 

So he wasn't actually offside from the header? No?

[Tommy Brown]

3 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

I don't understand your answer, Tommy. Did they give lines to prove he was offside when his teammate made contact with the ball? Just answer that, it's simple.

 

 

Remember folks, it's a corner you cannot be offside from a corner.

FFS

he is offside when the player heads it.

It is no longer a corner.

 

You have a cheek calling this thread mental. You didn't see it, and you've got it all wrong. Your mental

Edited April 7 by Tommy Brown

[milky_26]

2 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

I don't understand your answer, Tommy. Did they give lines to prove he was offside when his teammate made contact with the ball? Just answer that, it's simple.

 

 

Remember folks, it's a corner you cannot be offside from a corner.

 

no need for lines, 

[Fozzyonthefence]

1 minute ago, ArcticJambo said:

So he wasn't actually offside from the header? No?

Yes he was.  That was the decision given. 

[milky_26]

1 minute ago, ArcticJambo said:

So he wasn't actually offside from the header? No?

yes he was offside

[ArcticJambo]

Just now, Tommy Brown said:

FFS

he is offside when the player heads it.

It is no longer a corner.

Your comprehension skills are diabolical. Answer the question, Tommy.

[ArcticJambo]

Just now, Fozzyonthefence said:

Yes he was.  That was the decision given. 

Your posts I find generally quite strange if I'm quite honest, Fozzy. Ho hum, will be the last time I engage with you on this subject.

[Tommy Brown]

1 minute ago, ArcticJambo said:

Your comprehension skills are diabolical. Answer the question, Tommy.

You watch the footage and learn the laws

[ArcticJambo]

1 minute ago, milky_26 said:

yes he was offside

 

Look folks I've asked the question a couple of times, did they show that he was offside with lines from the header? Yes, or no?  Very simple, hopefully someone will answer this question.

[ArcticJambo]

Just now, Tommy Brown said:

You watch the footage and learn the laws

So you don't actually know then.

[Fozzyonthefence]

12 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

I don't understand your answer, Tommy. Did they give lines to prove he was offside when his teammate made contact with the ball? Just answer that, it's simple.

 

 

Remember folks, it's a corner you cannot be offside from a corner.

You’re really not getting this are you?!  You can’t be offside directly from a corner!  It wasn’t direct from a corner.  Someone headed it.  He’s then offside.  
 

Why do you keep banging on about lines?!  I guess on VAR they will probably always draw lines but they obviously don’t always need them.  Why are you so obsessed about this point?  Nobody is disputing that he was standing in an offside position.  The only thing for the referee to determine was whether he was interfering with play or not.

Edited April 7 by Fozzyonthefence

[Tommy Brown]

Just now, ArcticJambo said:

So you don't actually know then.

I know OK

You're making an arse of yourself.

[Bad Religion]

2 hours ago, John Findlay said:

You can be offside from a corner. You cannot be offside from a bye kick or throw in.

I have to admit if I had been the ref then I would have let the goal stand.

West Ham goalie was never saving it, even if there wasn't someone in front of him.

Explain how it’s possible to be offside directly from a corner. 

[Fozzyonthefence]

3 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

Your comprehension skills are diabolical. Answer the question, Tommy.

You’re absolutely clueless or simply trolling!  Nobody can be this stupid surely?

[milky_26]

2 minutes ago, ArcticJambo said:

 

Look folks I've asked the question a couple of times, did they show that he was offside with lines from the header? Yes, or no?  Very simple, hopefully someone will answer this question.

they dont need to show lines for an offside, look at the picture i've posted, if you can't see that he is in an offside position then football is not the game for you

[ArcticJambo]

5 minutes ago, milky_26 said:

 

no need for lines, 

 

Thank you Milky. Offside.

 

I sincerely wish folks would read the posts and answer the questions, it really would be a lot simpler and save all the fuss.