Sky's Justification Of The Offside

[thehet]

If the linesman can't see the ball, he CANNOT make an offside decision of any kind.

I'd like to know, given his position and that of the players, whether he could see the ball.

 

[UnitedBlade]

No, he didn't enforce the laws. The linesman was mistaken. The decision was incorrect, so the laws have not been enforced. A falsehood has been enforced instead.

If a police officer arrested someone for disqualified driving on the basis of incorrect information that he'd received, he would not be enforcing the law because there would have been no breach of the law.

Fortunately, if the police make a mistake like that it can be rectified when the full facts are known. Unfortunately, in our case the mistake won't be rectified and a perfectly lawful goal (within the rules of the game) has been chalked off.

In your/our opinion he was mistaken but it's not proof. Sky has zero jurisdiction. As Law 5 states, you can change a decision before play is restarted but otherwise the match officials, particularly the ref are judge and jury. You won't be able to give a single example of a goal being awarded after the event. That's where the analogy with laws of the land breaks down.

But beware technology. In cricket, they always check whether it was a no ball or not. They may well check whether the free kick was justified.

Just like all footballers work on pulling shirts in the box, they practise taking advantage by "throwing your leg" at opponents. Because we support a club we always want every decision to go our way. Opinion will always be part of the game. At best it was a soft free kick but others will argue the ref got it wrong.

 

[Harrisblade]

If the linesman can't see the ball, he CANNOT make an offside decision of any kind.

I'd like to know, given his position and that of the players, whether he could see the ball.

It probably looked to him that "NUMBER FIVE" was about to be in an offside position, so it's not fair to expect the linesman to see that the "NUMBER FIVE" checked back a fraction after the linesman had decided

 

[mosbolad]

With the exception of the keeper, whose foot is nearest the goal line at the moment the ball is kicked?

A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts with which they can touch the ball during any other part of the play is in the opponents' half of the pitch and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-to-last opponent.

Consideration should be given to any part of the head, body, or feet of the attacker in relation to the second last defender.

So to me it would appear that O'Connell is offside and the linesman is correct.

Unless of course SKY have tampered with their footage. I wouldn't put it past them!

Please leave your 'likes' below. I shall leave a space.

 

[oldblade]

In your/our opinion he was mistaken but it's not proof. Sky has zero jurisdiction. As Law 5 states, you can change a decision before play is restarted but otherwise the match officials, particularly the ref are judge and jury. You won't be able to give a single example of a goal being awarded after the event. That's where the analogy with laws of the land breaks down.

But beware technology. In cricket, they always check whether it was a no ball or not. They may well check whether the free kick was justified.

Just like all footballers work on pulling shirts in the box, they practise taking advantage by "throwing your leg" at opponents. Because we support a club we always want every decision to go our way. Opinion will always be part of the game. At best it was a soft free kick but others will argue the ref got it wrong.

No it doesn't. I was showing that in both cases there had been a failure by the officials to enforce/uphold the laws that they are responsible for enforcing/upholding.

Our goal was a goal within the rules of football. The officials failed to 'enforce' the rules.

If the goal had been given, I don't think you would have seen very many complaints from the Middlesbrough team or their supporters.

I don't think we are going to agree on this so will probably have to agree to differ.

 

[oldblade]

With the exception of the keeper, whose foot is nearest the goal line at the moment the ball is kicked?

A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts with which they can touch the ball during any other part of the play is in the opponents' half of the pitch and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-to-last opponent.

Consideration should be given to any part of the head, body, or feet of the attacker in relation to the second last defender.

So to me it would appear that O'Connell is offside and the linesman is correct.

Unless of course SKY have tampered with their footage. I wouldn't put it past them!

Please leave your 'likes' below. I shall leave a space.

I think this one has already been put to bed earlier in the thread.

 

[Kenilworth]

With the exception of the keeper, whose foot is nearest the goal line at the moment the ball is kicked?

A player is in an offside position if any of their body parts with which they can touch the ball during any other part of the play is in the opponents' half of the pitch and closer to the opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-to-last opponent.

Consideration should be given to any part of the head, body, or feet of the attacker in relation to the second last defender.

So to me it would appear that O'Connell is offside and the linesman is correct.

Unless of course SKY have tampered with their footage. I wouldn't put it past them!

Please leave your 'likes' below. I shall leave a space.

Ref show with Alan Biggs, former Ref chief Keith Hackett (Wendy fan not forgetting) who instructs today's refs and assistant refs and Mark Lawrenson.
Keith, "disgraceful decision."
"He should be sat in his hands for a month"
"It didn't satisfy one criterion for being given offside"
"Ref should have taken the time to consult"

Ex ref Dermott Gallagher on SSN this AM.
"Not offside."









More space needed?

 

[mosbolad]

Ref show with Alan Biggs, former Ref chief Keith Hackett (Wendy fan not forgetting) who instructs today's refs and assistant refs and Mark Lawrenson.
Keith, "disgraceful decision."
"He should be sat in his hands for a month"
"It didn't satisfy one criterion for being given offside"
"Ref should have taken the time to consult"

Ex ref Dermott Gallagher on SSN this AM.
"Not offside."









More space needed?

So regardless of the refs saying disgraceful etc. Does the pictures in my post show O'Connell's foot as being offside or not?
For what its worth I have not 'doctored' the picture at all but for me it shows his foot is fractionally offside. His foot is nearest to the goal of anyone but the keeper.
I cant say what the lino saw or what the ref thought but the pictures show his foot to be offside. Do you agree?
For what it's worth in the spirit of the game of course it should be allowed but the picture to me does show it to be offside.

 

[Kenilworth]

So regardless of the refs saying disgraceful etc. Does the pictures in my post show O'Connell's foot as being offside or not?
For what its worth I have not 'doctored' the picture at all but for me it shows his foot is fractionally offside. His foot is nearest to the goal of anyone but the keeper.
I cant say what the lino saw or what the ref thought but the pictures show his foot to be offside. Do you agree?
For what it's worth in the spirit of the game of course it should be allowed but the picture to me does show it to be offside.

Nope. Cos the picture is not absolutely in line and I can't tell from that exactly when the ball was kicked.
Have to be 100% sure to give the decision. Any doubt then don't flag.

Lino's earlier action with Freeman shows he was giving decisions based on instinct rather than what he actually saw - which doesn't help his cause.

Moot point either way as the goal was ruled out for offside.

 

[mosbolad]

Nope. Cos the picture is not absolutely in line and I can't tell from that exactly when the ball was kicked.
Have to be 100% sure to give the decision. Any doubt then don't flag.

Lino's earlier action with Freeman shows he was giving decisions based on instinct rather than what he actually saw - which doesn't help his cause.

Moot point either way as the goal was ruled out for offside.

Of course you can tell when the ball was kicked in the first picture its on the end of his foot so he is.... erm... kicking it......

You can also see JOC right foot is slightly offside as in it's nearer the goal than any opposing player other than the keeper. The second pic is just a blown up part of the first pic and clearly shows his offending offside foot.

It also doesn't matter that the picture is not in line as you can still clearly see his foot is offside. Look where the feet are of the player behind him. Further from the goal than O'Connells.

What the lino saw or didn't see or thought he saw or whatever is irrelevant as he blew offside and it transpires from the video still photo that it is offside. It's also irrelevant the decision against Freeman. He might have just randomly blown the whistle cos he fancied it, it really doesn't matter as it happened to coincide with O'Connell being offside.

So........ OFFSIDE.........

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Errr no.

The angle proves nothing.

The proper angle shows no foot offside.

End of.

 

[oldblade]

Of course you can tell when the ball was kicked in the first picture its on the end of his foot so he is.... erm... kicking it......

You can also see JOC right foot is slightly offside as in it's nearer the goal than any opposing player other than the keeper. The second pic is just a blown up part of the first pic and clearly shows his offending offside foot.

It also doesn't matter that the picture is not in line as you can still clearly see his foot is offside. Look where the feet are of the player behind him. Further from the goal than O'Connells.

What the lino saw or didn't see or thought he saw or whatever is irrelevant as he blew offside and it transpires from the video still photo that it is offside. It's also irrelevant the decision against Freeman. He might have just randomly blown the whistle cos he fancied it, it really doesn't matter as it happened to coincide with O'Connell being offside.

So........ OFFSIDE.........

On the Channel 5 highlights, they had it down as an own goal. Therefore not offside.

Anyway, your picture does not show that he was in an offside position. That picture is taken a fraction after Duffy made initial contact with the ball. He's already leaning back and driving his foot through the ball and the players in the box have already moved.

 

[Gimli]

It also doesn't matter that the picture is not in line as you can still clearly see his foot is offside. Look where the feet are of the player behind him. Further from the goal than O'Connells.
.

Er, yes it does matter that the picture is not in line - the angle is the most critical part, if you cant see straight down the line, you can't tell. From that angle, JOC's foot might appear offside but all the other angles (Sky's delayed picture aside) show him to be Onside.

 

[Paulus]

That yellow smudge looks suspiciously large and yellow - who's been tampering with it

 

[oldblade]

Er, yes it does matter that the picture is not in line - the angle is the most critical part, if you cant see straight down the line, you can't tell. From that angle, JOC's foot might appear offside but all the other angles (Sky's delayed picture aside) show him to be Onside.

In another picture earlier in the thread you can see from the different shades of green of the grass cut lines that he isn't offside.

 

[mosbolad]

That yellow smudge looks suspiciously large and yellow - who's been tampering with it

It does indeed but if you look at the sky vid that is exactly what it appears like and it is indeed offside.

Er, yes it does matter that the picture is not in line - the angle is the most critical part, if you cant see straight down the line, you can't tell. From that angle, JOC's foot might appear offside but all the other angles (Sky's delayed picture aside) show him to be Onside.

Of course it doesn't matter if it is inline! Look at the picture below. Can you see that the keeper is nearest to the goal or would it have to be inline? Then you can also see JOC foot is nearer the goal than the player behind him and therefore offside.

Sky delayed picture shows him onside? Sky delayed picture shows him giving an interview at the end and that is irrelevant also......

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Try the proper angle ffs.

Then try to justify your claim.

 

[Liverpool blade]

I've watched the dissalowed goal numerous times and can't see what the Lino has seen to deem it offside!!. if as someone said earlier that O'Connells foot is offside!!. Fucking hell he must have got X-ray vision!!. I know superman had X-ray vision!!. He wasn't real though!!!. The Lino was just a complete and utter knuckle dragging fuckwit and I hope we don't see him again for a while or never would be good!!. Utb

 

[mosbolad]

Try the proper angle ffs.

Then try to justify your claim.

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.

 

[Gimli]

It does indeed but if you look at the sky vid that is exactly what it appears like and it is indeed offside.



Of course it doesn't matter if it is inline! Look at the picture below. Can you see that the keeper is nearest to the goal or would it have to be inline? Then you can also see JOC foot is nearer the goal than the player behind him and therefore offside.

Sky delayed picture shows him onside? Sky delayed picture shows him giving an interview at the end and that is irrelevant also......

1) you can't see that he is offside from that angle.
2) You can't see the entire defensive line.
3) Why do you think linesmen stand in line with the defence?

This angle proves nothing.
I can live with the decision, it's annoying but it happens, but I won't have somebody tell me it was offside by using an angle that is nowhere near in line.

 

[mosbolad]

I've watched the dissalowed goal numerous times and can't see what the Lino has seen to deem it offside!!. if as someone said earlier that O'Connells foot is offside!!. Fucking hell he must have got X-ray vision!!. I know superman had X-ray vision!!. He wasn't real though!!!. The Lino was just a complete and utter knuckle dragging fuckwit and I hope we don't see him again for a while or never would be good!!. Utb

Agree entirely! He might have just had a nervous twitch or have been pointing to his dad in the crowd, but unfortunately it led to us not being given a goal, and even more unfortunately it appears JOC foot is offside at the time the ball was kicked.

 

[vorpal blade]

hang on, mosbo, the foot in question is about as big as the elephant man's and the ball is in two places at once on your photo.

Its time-lapse photography with a bit of lens flare thrown in.

You can't even tell if his foot is on the ground or a foot above it.

Op-art

 

[mosbolad]

1) you can't see that he is offside from that angle.
2) You can't see the entire defensive line.
3) Why do you think linesmen stand in line with the defence?

This angle proves nothing.
I can live with the decision, it's annoying but it happens, but I won't have somebody tell me it was offside by using an angle that is nowhere near in line.

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.

 

[ucandomagic]

Don't know if anybody else has watched the catch-up of EFL Goals Championship on Sky but they have corrected the split screen. JOC's foot and the bloke in front of him are now almost exactly in line. However, the lino can probably not see the bloke in front at all (Gibson I think) as JOC is masking him. All the lino sees is JOC's bum and right leg beyond Dael Fry behind him - who eventually headed it in. From that right hand screen, JOC would definitely look offside to the lino - even though he wasn't.

Bring on the Bluebirds - The Magic will be Back.

 

[Pittsburg Blade]

That yellow smudge looks suspiciously large and yellow - who's been tampering with it

Tomorrow we'll see him wearing brown camo boots

 

[mosbolad]

View attachment 29595 Don't know if anybody else has watched the catch-up of EFL Goals Championship on Sky but they have corrected the split screen. JOC's foot and the bloke in front of him are now almost exactly in line. However, the lino can probably not see the bloke in front at all (Gibson I think) as JOC is masking him. All the lino sees is JOC's bum and right leg beyond Dael Fry behind him - who eventually headed it in. From that right hand screen, JOC would definitely look offside to the lino - even though he wasn't.

Bring on the Bluebirds - The Magic will be Back.

I see your point ucandomagic.

To make your point even clearer I have drawn a line straight across the box (pic below) and it is clear to see O'Connell is ONSIDE....

OFFSIDE!...............

I can agree with you on.....

"Bring on the Bluebirds - The Magic will be Back."

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

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

 

[Kenilworth]

View attachment 29595 Don't know if anybody else has watched the catch-up of EFL Goals Championship on Sky but they have corrected the split screen. JOC's foot and the bloke in front of him are now almost exactly in line. However, the lino can probably not see the bloke in front at all (Gibson I think) as JOC is masking him. All the lino sees is JOC's bum and right leg beyond Dael Fry behind him - who eventually headed it in. From that right hand screen, JOC would definitely look offside to the lino - even though he wasn't.

Bring on the Bluebirds - The Magic will be Back.

Now that is a good explanation and one I thought about earlier. All the camera angles are from the opposite side to the lino

 

[Kenilworth]

Dem yeller things stand out too much. All the more reason to wear black boots FFS!

 

[Kenilworth]

I see your point ucandomagic.

To make your point even clearer I have drawn a line straight across the box (pic below) and it is clear to see O'Connell is ONSIDE....

OFFSIDE!...............

I can agree with you on.....

"Bring on the Bluebirds - The Magic will be Back."

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