Sky's Justification Of The Offside

[mosbolad]

Why not achieve the same result by drawing a line parallel with the pitch cuttings?

From that picture the boots are level if you draw a parallel line to the grass lines. As ucandomagic says the Lino may not have noticed the player beyond JO'C who was playing him onside as he will have been obscured by JO'C. However his head is nearer the goal than JO'C and that was the bit that put the ball in the net.

Still moot
It was given offside

Just for you Scooter and Kenilworth.
By the way. His head does count but JOC's foot is still nearer the goal. Arms don't count but I guess you knew that.

OFFSIDE.......

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Can't see that the ball was kicked at exactly that point so the evidence is dismissed.

 

[ucandomagic]

Can't see that the ball was kicked at exactly that point so the evidence is dismissed.

If you look at Bash's feet and the 2 guys legs running to his left in the split screen you can see that this is the exact moment of contact. Sky got themselves sorted in the end!

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

If you look at Bash's feet and the 2 guys legs running to his left in the split screen you can see that this is the exact moment of contact. Sky got themselves sorted in the end!

I'm just being awkward

Anyhow, benefit of the doubt and all that. Not offside.

 

[Gimli]

1) Yes I can and so can you but you don't want to admit it as you wouldn't be able to say we woz robbed!
2) You can now. See the pic below. Entire defensive line. Same result. Offside.
3) It makes it easier for the lino obviously as they don't have an elevated position or the opportunity to freeze frame still photos from the match. If I said the ref was in line I presume you would say no he isn't I can see he is outside the area.....In which case you have just proved my point. From the angle of the photo you can see exactly where all players are and that JOC foot is.......OFFSIDE!

Here you are, below.....Line drawn through back of JOC foot directly across the box. His foot is offside therefore he is OFFSIDE....

Thank you and goodnight.

We woz robbed!

 

[ucandomagic]

I'm just being awkward

Anyhow, benefit of the doubt and all that. Not offside.

I agree, there's no way that the lino flagged because JOC's foot was 2 inches beyond Gibson's! I'm convinced that he gave it because he couldn't see Gibson at all and JOC was beyond Fry. If you showed that picture to a ref I'm sure that they would say you shouldn't flag because in real time there is absolutely no way that you can be certain.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Just for you Scooter and Kenilworth.
By the way. His head does count but JOC's foot is still nearer the goal. Arms don't count but I guess you knew that.

OFFSIDE.......

That pic was taken 0.5 second after the ball was kicked.
The pic taken at the point the ball was kicked shows he's level, so ON SIDE.

But to be honest I don't think losing 1 point will make any difference to our campaign, can't see us being involved in promotion or relegation.

Wouldn't you just love it if Boro pipped Wednesday by 1 point to a play-off spot. We'll then be praising the linesman for preventing Wednesday reach the play-offs.

 

[mosbolad]

That pic was taken 0.5 second after the ball was kicked.
The pic taken at the point the ball was kicked shows he's level, so ON SIDE.

But to be honest I don't think losing 1 point will make any difference to our campaign, can't see us being involved in promotion or relegation.

Wouldn't you just love it if Boro pipped Wednesday by 1 point to a play-off spot. We'll then be praising the linesman for preventing Wednesday reach the play-offs.

Nope Sheffsteel. Have a look at posts 113 and 114 The pics with the lines are at precisely the instant the ball was kicked and the subsequent close ups with the 'offside line' drawn are closeups taken from the main photo. The half second delay photo in post 1 isn't the one I used.

Couldn't agree more about your other points though!

 

[MobileBlade]

Just to be pedantic, the ball comes into play when it has travelled the distance of its circumference not when it is kicked

 

[oldblade]

Proper angle? Can you see the crowd behind the goal? And the keeper in front of the line? Then you can also see JOC's right foot offside. Obviously you don't want to see it as we would no longer be able to say how hard done to we are. But his foot is there, offside, as plain as day.

You can see O'Connell's foot is nearer to the goal than any of the defenders in that particular picture, but that most definitely does not show that he was offside because that picture was not taken at the time of Duffy's earliest contact with the ball.

Channel 5 say it was an own goal anyway, so even if we take your picture as the earliest point at which Duffy struck the ball (which it wasn't) the goal was still not offside.

 

[yorkshirecoast]

You can see O'Connell's foot is nearer to the goal than any of the defenders in that particular picture, but that most definitely does not show that he was offside because that picture was not taken at the time of Duffy's earliest contact with the ball.

Channel 5 say it was an own goal anyway, so even if we take your picture as the earliest point at which Duffy struck the ball (which it wasn't) the goal was still not offside.

It was an own-goal but that is irrelevant - because O'Connell was challenging the defender who scored the OG so had he been offside he would have been active and interfering with play. However, he wasn't off-side when the free kick was taken. So we were cheated. Again.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Just to be pedantic, the ball comes into play when it has travelled the distance of its circumference not when it is kicked

To be even more pedantic - the FA official rule does not actually state the ball has to travel one circumference, it only states "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played". Doesn't the one circumference only apply to the kick off?

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

UTB

 

[MobileBlade]

To be even more pedantic - the FA official rule does not actually state the ball has to travel one circumference, it only states "A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played". Doesn't the one circumference only apply to the kick off?

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/lawsandrules/laws/football-11-11/law-11---offside

UTB

Actually, technically, its covered by Law 8 where it states "the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves" - they changed the Law a few years ago from stating the distance of its circumference (which according to Law 2 is 27-28 inches). This often caused debate so they changed the Law to make it even more ambiguous.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

Actually, technically, its covered by Law 8 where it states "the ball is in play when it is kicked and clearly moves" - they changed the Law a few years ago from stating the distance of its circumference (which according to Law 2 is 27-28 inches). This often caused debate so they changed the Law to make it even more ambiguous.

thanks for that - I wasn't trying to pull you up btw, but it does seem some footy are can be interpreted differently.

UTB

 

[oldblade]

It was an own-goal but that is irrelevant - because O'Connell was challenging the defender who scored the OG so had he been offside he would have been active and interfering with play. However, he wasn't off-side when the free kick was taken. So we were cheated. Again.

Don't agree that he was actually challenging the defender at the time that the ball was first touched, so I don't think he would have been deemed to be interfering with play. Players don't even get pulled up for that when they've run across the goal keeper's line of vision!

You've mellowed. There was a time that if anyone had come up with an excuse like that you'd have raged at them for being a closet Wednesdayite

But anyway, as you say, he was not offside at the time that the ball was first touched.

That picture with the red line proves nothing. The red line isn't even parallel to the six yard line.

 

[Lawrence]

Just for you Scooter and Kenilworth.
By the way. His head does count but JOC's foot is still nearer the goal. Arms don't count but I guess you knew that.

OFFSIDE.......

God the Lino must have Lazer eyes!
Naaaa there's no way Mark Dwyer could have seen that, plus the ball never got near to the hat, a goal everyday of the week!

 

[BushBlade]

The attacking side should always get the benefit of doubt is what was said when these new offside rules were brought in so even if it was marginal it's still a bad decision. Wanker!

I'm just going to reply to this again as it's still the correct answer.

 

[MobileBlade]

Don't agree that he was actually challenging the defender at the time that the ball was first touched, so I don't think he would have been deemed to be interfering with play. Players don't even get pulled up for that when they've run across the goal keeper's line of vision!

You've mellowed. There was a time that if anyone had come up with an excuse like that you'd have raged at them for being a closet Wednesdayite

But anyway, as you say, he was not offside at the time that the ball was first touched.

That picture with the red line proves nothing. The red line isn't even parallel to the six yard line.

It is irrelevant at the time the ball was played. He comes active if the ball is not touched by another player after it is been played and, basically, it arrives in that area.

Just to say, I still think awful decision - the linesman guessed and at the rule is the attacker should always be given the benefit of the doubt. Be interesting to see if the same thing comes up at the Barnsley game tonight if he does the same thing!!

 

[Westran]

I think it's a bad decision, but an easy one to make a mistake on. We're talking about a spilt second decision that regardless of the offside should have been counted as an own goal anyway. But these things happen.

What makes it tougher to take is that it's 3 goals in 2 league games so far dissallowed when at least 2 should have stood. In terms of evening things up, the ref tonight has a lot of work to do for us.

 

[BushBlade]

I think it's a bad decision, but an easy one to make a mistake on. We're talking about a spilt second decision that regardless of the offside should have been counted as an own goal anyway. But these things happen.

What makes it tougher to take is that it's 3 goals in 2 league games so far dissallowed when at least 2 should have stood. In terms of evening things up, the ref tonight has a lot of work to do for us.

Agree. There are countless poor decisions from refs and linos these days (always was but they got away with a lot before cameras at all games) and they're not helped by the pace of the modern game.

What annoys me in this case is that he made a very controversial decision when it was easier for him to have not done. Even if cameras had shown it was offside, no one (apart from a few boro fans on twatter) would have castigated him for missing it. It was fractions. IMO, there are 'good' mistakes (eg a ref misses a pen because he's unsighted and won't guess, even if he suspects it's a pen) and 'bad' mistakes (where the official comes across as either incompetent or attention seeking) and this was a bad one.

 

[mosbolad]

God the Lino must have Lazer eyes!
Naaaa there's no way Mark Dwyer could have seen that, plus the ball never got near to the hat, a goal everyday of the week!

Everyday except last Saturday. He was probably waving his flag at his dad in the crowd and it just coincided with JOC being 4.5mm offside.......