Football The 2010/2011 Season Thread

[Wonk]

"It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position."

.........

"A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position"

“interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate

He's not playing/touching the ball with a pass from a team mate - more about that later in the post.

“interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent
from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing
the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or
movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an
opponent

This doesn't happen either. He's clearly running alone

“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an
offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent
having been in an offside position

He gets it off an opponent, but it doesn't rebound to him. Here's what Wazz gets wrong.

The situation is reset when the defender has a chance to get control of the ball. (Gaining control of the ball means actively trying to control the ball - no matter whether he has any luck doing so) Kos has that opportunity, but misses the ball completly with his acrobatic attempt and ends up hitting Saha with it. The striker doesn't get penalized for that. It's not a reflection or a rebound. It's now a new situation and Saha is still offside HOWEVER it's not being played to him by one of his team-members. (see the first rules I posted).

(it took a while because I reread all the rules, and my point still stands).

now quit the personal insults and feel free to quote my post.

 

[Wazzerphuk]

Fucking hell, lol.

 

[Wonk]

or look here http://www.redcafe.net/f7/sahas-goal-vs-arsenal-320107/index2.html - Makki is explaining it pretty well.

 

[megadave]

it's offside

 

[Aoami]

or look here Saha's goal vs Arsenal - Page 2 - RedCafe.net - Makki is explaining it pretty well.

Makki said it's offside

 

[Wonk]

Makki said it's offside

yes, but his points are valid. It's about whether it's a rebound or a controlled ball, not whether the guy was in an offside position when he the ball was passed - which nobody seems to get.

And yes, I do think it was a controlled ball - especially after reading up on the rules on the Danish Football Association's site.

 

[megadave]

surely as soon as the ball is played to saha the flag should go up and the it's offside, what happens next is irrelevent

 

[megadave]

Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson claims he had to stand up against Wayne Rooney and player power - Telegraph

Ferguson also railed against the “unbelievable” audacity of agents, confessed to a reluctance for ruthlessness with long-serving players and admitted that Sven-Goran Eriksson had been approached by Manchester United to replace him as manager in 2002.

Imagine if that'd happened

 

[Cerb]

Chelsea would have won about 6 in a row or something.

 

[Scouse]

He fumbles it, which makes it a new situation

...Classic girl mistake.

....It doesn't matter if the ball hits a defender and is deflected, or if the defender tries to clear it - the offence has already happened....

Basic mistake....you're definately a giant wanker...

Edit: Can't help sticking up for that AIDS riddled arse-monkey when he's so obviously right

It's mind boggling.

Not really tho. Some people just *have* to be right, even in the face of their obvious stupidity.

 

[Ormorof]

well isnt it the case that the flag would go up (correctly as the player is offside), but ref would only usually blow for the foul when the player who was offside actually touches the ball or makes a move to take the ball? (or interfering with play or whatever) if he ignores it and lets defender take it, or a player who was not offside, usually play is allowed to continue?

this is due to the "interfering with play" rule? if a defender passes to an offside attacker its not offside (have you guys never played fifa and accidentally passed back to your keeper when other player had a striker left in the penalty box? )

 

[soze]

surely as soon as the ball is played to saha the flag should go up and the it's offside, what happens next is irrelevent

With the new rule the flag should only go up once he touches the ball. In this situation people think as it came off the defender it could not be offside as it was not played by his own man.

But as being 3 yards off side meant no one could make a challenge he definitely had an advantage from the original through ball so even under this bat shit crazy offside rule he was offside.

 

[Ormorof]

well by the time he actually shoots there are 2 defenders in front of him so saying no one could make a tackle is not really true

 

[Calaen]

With the new rule the flag should only go up once he touches the ball. In this situation people think as it came off the defender it could not be offside as it was not played by his own man.

But as being 3 yards off side meant no one could make a challenge he definitely had an advantage from the original through ball so even under this bat shit crazy offside rule he was offside.

Go Watch Ronaldos go for Real madrid where he was 30 yards offside, the ball gets plaeyd to Ozil who is onside and he runs towards goal and passes to Ronaldo who is unmarked due to no one being able to get close to him.

The rule is a farce which is why this argument has been raging on and on.

 

[Lethul]

They fight! And bite!
They fight and bite and fight!
Fight fight fight! Bite bite bite!
The Andy and Suarez Show!
:worthy:

 

[Vladamir]

 

[Vladamir]

Also olol

They thought he’d always be a red – Torres! Torres!
You’ll never walk alone he said – Torres! Torres!
They bought the lad from sunny Spain,
He scored a few then grew a brain
He told the club he wants to leave,
To play with Frank instead of Steve
Fernando Torres – Chelsea’s new number nine!

 

[leviathane]

so more to come in the summer? BBC Sport - Football - Arsenal boss Arsene Wenger questions Chelsea spending

 

[Vladamir]

Remains to be seen, I'd imagine a few will move on, but I doubt we'll see a massive splurge, maybe one or two new faces in and the return of the loanee's.

 

[Ormorof]

might buy some younger (19-23?) players to replace the oldies, got some good young players already though as far as i know (and out on loan)

how is Mancienne doing? remember reading about him being a "Hot prospect", to quote FM, a few years ago

 

[Ch3tan]

He's turned into a midfielder. I think he's far too small to play central defence.

 

[Everz]

We converted him to a defensive midfielder, suits him better as he is a work horse with good ball control. Could see him being a squad player for Chelsea next season, as his work rate is extremely impressive.

Hes currently injured, has been for a longtime..

@Chet, hes not strong enough for centre back, in the air hes pretty impressive tbh.

 

[Wonk]

well isnt it the case that the flag would go up (correctly as the player is offside), but ref would only usually blow for the foul when the player who was offside actually touches the ball or makes a move to take the ball? (or interfering with play or whatever) if he ignores it and lets defender take it, or a player who was not offside, usually play is allowed to continue?

this is due to the "interfering with play" rule? if a defender passes to an offside attacker its not offside (have you guys never played fifa and accidentally passed back to your keeper when other player had a striker left in the penalty box? )

exactly. It's much easier to insult other people when you don't know shit about the rule though.

As for the advantage position, look it up and see what it actually means or check my earlier post. He's not in an advantage position if the defender has the opportunity to get the ball under control. Then it's a new situation and it would be judged as the defender passed the ball back to the striker.

I've had enough of the personal insults from the general posters here. Good luck getting more people to the forum.

 

[Vladamir]

Don't leave us superpark

 

[Ch3tan]

personal insults? Fuck me, it's okay when you guys banter with each other, but as soon as someone you are unfamiliar with does it, it's personal? Get over yourselves and stop acting like women.

Wazzer can be abrupt but he's never personal, just call him a twat and tell him to fuck off, he won't take it badly.

 

[tierk]

I've had enough of the personal insults from the general posters here. Good luck getting more people to the forum.

Oi don't be so sensitive mate, this place is full of hard core peeps esp in this football thread and they generally have no idea what they talking about, even though they try and act /sound like presenters on MOTD they all FAIL!!

 

[Ormorof]

hehe but in this case Wonk is right im afraid;

A change to the rule was introduced a few years ago, which allows a player to be in an offside position provided they are not "actively involved in play".

It was designed to promote attacking football, but it is open to interpretation.

Fifa, world football's governing body, gives the following definition:

"Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate."

in the Saha case the ball was not touched or passed by a team mate, thus it was not offside as was determined, being in an offside position is not a foul, if the player had headed the ball and it fell to his feet, it would still not be offside as it was not passed to him by a team mate.

we (as in, the armchair pundits) can determine that through minute details of a replay but ref has to make quick decision or get lynched (either way, will probably be complained about), at least a decision is made rather than dallying around or changing mind two or three times.

of course with video replays this could be sorted out by the 4th official (but maybe a limit on how many contested calls you can have per game like in Tennis? )

 

[Everz]

Your all the biggest bunch of queers I've ever met tbh.

Spoiler

no safety wink

 

[Ch3tan]

He's not right though, it's open to interpretation. The ref adjuged the defender to have controlled the ball thus negating Saha's offside advantage, however another ref would have judged it advantageous as the offside position is what allowed Saha to gain the ball.

It comes down to whether you believe Koscielny had control of the ball or not.

FIFA should simply go back to the old system, where offside is offside.

 

[Corran]

in the Saha case the ball was not touched or passed by a team mate, thus it was not offside as was determined, being in an offside position is not a foul, if the player had headed the ball and it fell to his feet, it would still not be offside as it was not passed to him by a team mate.

I need to see the goal, but that isnt strictly true,

If a long ball is hit over the top, and a player was offside to start with then he will still be classed as offside if the defender tries to clear, it flicks of his head and puts the attacker through on goal.
It goes by the initial pass.

Now with this current one i cant be sure because of how people are discribing it.

If the ball was played through by the everton player to saha whilst he offside, the defender controlled it completely and then messed up then there is the option to not give offside, however most would give offside saying it still part the same phase of play. It one the unfortunate things with this stupid rule, total different interpretations possible!

If the pass was played through, the defender went to clear, sliced it and it went to saha then he would be offside for definate as there no way to say it not the same phase of play. The defender is attempting to clear because he knows saha is around and thus his positioning is influencing play.

but that just me