Dismiss Notice
Guest, I have a big favor to ask you. We've been working very hard to establish ourselves on social media. If you like/follow our pages it would be a HUGE help to us. SoSH on Facebook and Inside the Pylon Thanks! Nip

Goal or Offside?

Discussion in 'Breakfast with Gazza (with Sachmoneious Bullcrap)' started by Nick Kaufman, Mar 11, 2018.

  1. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    I am putting this in a neutral forum, because I want to hear people who literally have no bias for this. What do you think of this? Is it a goal or an offside?

     
  2. Zedia

    Zedia Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,641
    Despite playing about 500 games of FIFA 16 on my iPad, I don't really get offsides. Is it offsides even if it doesn't touch the guy in front of the goalie? I think it is.
     
  3. Titans Bastard

    Titans Bastard has sunil gulati in his sights Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,853
    I say it's a goal.

    The last attacker is in an offside position, but I don't think he interfered with the play. The attacker didn't touch the ball and the keeper was beaten by the header at full stretch.

    I guess you could argue that the presence of the offside attacker caused the keeper to jump more hesitantly to his left, and therefore he wasn't able to get to the ball in time, but I think that header was going in either way.
     
  4. HurstSoGood

    HurstSoGood Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,359
    I believe he was on-sides and it was a goal. Ironically, he may very well have been clearly off-sides had his defender not grabbed his shirt at :54 of the video. The defender nearest the corner kicker did nothing to help make the case. Also of note, arms may generally not be considered part of the body in making an off-sides determination.
     
  5. Morgan's Magic Snowplow

    Morgan's Magic Snowplow Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    15,542
    That's where I stand too. He didn't obviously obstruct the keeper and he didn't touch the ball. So goal.
     
  6. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    What the fifa reg says:

    Offside offence

    A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

    • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or

    • interfering with an opponent by:

    • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

    • challenging an opponent for the ball or

    • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent or

    • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

    or

    • gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:

    • rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

    • been deliberately saved by any opponent

    A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save by any opponent) is not considered to have gained an advantage.

    A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).

    In situations where:

    • a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent’s progress (e.g. blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12.

    • a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

    • an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
     
  7. jmcc5400

    jmcc5400 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,356
    I think his presence influences the keeper. Offside
     
  8. BCsMightyJoeYoung

    BCsMightyJoeYoung Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,784
    Agree with Canderson .. Offside. The player in the offside position is attempting to play the ball .. the second he does that he is offside.

    But then, after seeing non calls like the Lovren/Kane one a couple of weeks ago who knows?
     
  9. Titans Bastard

    Titans Bastard has sunil gulati in his sights Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    7,853
    Say what you will about McDonald's, at least it's not communism!
     
  10. Cellar-Door

    Cellar-Door Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    13,388
    Goal to me.

    He doesn't play the ball even if he attempts to (as an aside, attempting to play the ball is irrelevant under the FIFA rules), and he has no impact on the keeper or any defender. The keeper is looking at the ball the whole way, and never adjusts his feet to account for the runner at all. He then dives full stretch to deflect the header and misses it without making contact with the player.

    Especially on a corner (where there is no infraction if he plays it direct) I feel you need to play the ball or impede a defender to waive off a goal.

    The FIFA law is that you have to be in the position
    AND:
    Interfering with play
    Interfering with an opponent
    Gaining an advantage.

    I just don't see which of those he's doing:
    Interfering with play: He never touches the ball, and the keeper never shades toward him
    Interfering with an opponent: He doesn't obstruct either the keeper or any defender from reaching a position
    Gaining an advantage: he never touches the ball or otherwise impacts the play.
     
  11. InstaFace

    InstaFace MDLzera

    Messages:
    4,475
    Looks like a goal to me. I think he's actually onside - his arms don't count - but even if you think he's offside, I don't think he interfered with the play. The ball is redirected before it crosses the line, but I'm 90% sure that's the goalie getting a fingertip to it.
     
  12. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    The only thing I am pretty certain of is that guy is obviously in an offside position; not because of his arms, but because of his legs and half of his body is across the line. This seems incontrovertibly true to me. Whether he influences the play or not is the question.
     
  13. ElcaballitoMVP

    ElcaballitoMVP Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    2,859
    I was about to say good goal. But upon closer inspection, I say no goal. I think he is just offsides when the ball is headed. He doesn't impact the goalie's dive, but his movement impacts his defender, who does impact the goalie's dive.
     
  14. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    27,411
    How can you possibly think he's not in an offside position?

    Now, I'm not saying he is offside (although I *think* I'd lean that way), but he very clearly has a part of his body that can play a ball beyond the defender.
     
  15. DennyDoyle'sBoil

    DennyDoyle'sBoil Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill SoSH Member

    Messages:
    20,486
    I think you have to give the benefit of the doubt toward the defender that interference has occurred when a player in an offside position is that close to the ball and to the defender trying to defend the ball right on the goal line. That is, I need a good reason not to call that player in active play, unless the shot is like top corner or something.

    But even giving that benefit of the doubt to the keeper in this situation I don’t think there was any advantage gained. If the keeper had hitched or flinched because of the offside position player’s presence, even in the slightest, and the flinch cost him even a remote chance at a save, I wave it off. On a similar play, I could very well see saying a defender in this same spot and with this kind of attempt would be in active play quite often, but watching the keeper’s reaction on the play in question here in slow motion, I probably call it a goal. I don’t think the attacker created an advantage.

    That’s with the benefit of slow motion replay though. In real time, I really can’t fault any ref who calls it no goal.
     
  16. InstaFace

    InstaFace MDLzera

    Messages:
    4,475
    So firstly, to judge that the attacker interfered with the goalie, and thus with play, you have to believe that he made a gesture or movement which "deceived or distracted" that goalie. From the behind-the-goal-line angle, the goalie's head was focused on the guy hitting the header. As soon as reflexes would allow, he laid out to his left - he clearly would have done nothing differently if the dubious attacker hadn't been there. If the deflection was in fact not from the goalie's hand (as I'm pretty certain it was) but rather from it hitting him in the legs, then I could see an argument for interferes.

    As to his offside-ed-ness: In the freeze-frame they offer at 0:05, the attacker's body position relative to the line they draw underneath him is uncertain. So start with that. Add to it that the playing of the ball is not an instantaneous thing with the header, the strike itself takes a nontrivial amount of time - and meanwhile, the last defender was going away from goal in the full timespan of the header, and the attacker was going towards goal. Finally, remember FIFA's officiating guidance, that if an AR isn't totally sure about an offside offense, the flag should not be raised. In a marginal case, "tie" effectively goes to the offense.
     
    #16 InstaFace, Mar 11, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2018
  17. wiffleballhero

    wiffleballhero Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    966
    Obviously off sides if he has any contact with the ball, but the call seems to hang on if he makes contact with his left foot as the ball goes between his legs. If so, off sides, if not: goal.

    I am not convinced that he has an impact on the actions of the other players. So it is really an easy call, technically. Visually, not so much.
     
  18. DrewDawg

    DrewDawg Dorito Dink SoSH Member

    Messages:
    27,411
    That guy is further into an offside position than dozens of calls every weekend, and it's really not close. I would wager close to 100% of certified officials would agree with at least that part of things. The last defender was not going away from the goal, he jumped, landed and turned around. There's a view that shows this about 20 seconds in.
     
  19. pedro1918

    pedro1918 Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,373
    Offside. I find it hard to believe his presence did not effect the players around him. I'd be screaming mad if that counted. Did it count?

    Of course I was, am, and (at heart) always will be a defender.
     
  20. BCsMightyJoeYoung

    BCsMightyJoeYoung Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,784
    Didn't realize the story quoted below was the same game.

    The goal was ruled offside, the aggrieved owner stormed the pitch - with a holstered gun in plain view - and reportedly told the Ref "he was a dead man"

    The match was abandoned with a minute to go.

    http://www.ekathimerini.com/226635/...-game-is-abandoned-as-league-sinks-even-lower
     
  21. mikeford

    mikeford woolwich! SoSH Member

    Messages:
    23,899
    That's a goal to me. The player in the offside position doesn't touch the ball and didn't influence or obstruct the keeper.
     
  22. Nick Kaufman

    Nick Kaufman protector of human kind from spoilers Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    10,235
    Do you read the english version of Kathimerini for work or for pleasure? :D

    FWIW, initially, the ref ruled it a goal, then AEK players stormed the assistant referee complaining it was a penalty, then the ref consulted with the assistant and reversed his decision and called it offside, only to be stormed by PAOK players who were celebrating up to that point - and yes- the owner of the team who had a gun holstered on his belt in public view. Then either the owner commanded his players to leave the pitch, presumably because they shouldn't participate in a charade of a match or the ref decided to stop play because, you know, the gun and the whole carnival of chaos made him feel unsafe, or both.

    The glorious cherry on top however is that apparently once the ref found himself in locker room and having listen to the bon mots of the PAOK owner, he decided YET AGAIN, to reverse his decision and declare the play a goal after all. He then tried to convince the AEK players to reenter the pitch in order to play the remaining minute, but AEK players refused to do so because of the whole atmosphere of intimidation capped by the gun brandishing owner.

    Since the sport judges who decide sanctions on trespasses of regulations in sports matters have to completely rely on what the ref reports in an official document about what happened on the pitch, we await to find out whether he holds AEK players responsible for not finishing the match because they refused to reenter - in which case, AEK will lose the game and have 3 points deducted, or whether PAOK with the whole pitch invasion was to blame in which case, PAOK would lose the game and have 3 points deducted. Either decision is bound to be ironic.

    All in a game which was considered a sort of a league final as it was between the two leading teams in the race for the league crown with like 6 matchdays remaining.

    I am telling you, when you follow the Greek league, stuff like Deflategate or whining about NBA refs seem like kid's stuff.
     
  23. swiftaw

    swiftaw Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,557
    I think if I were the defending team and it was called a goal I'd be mad. I think if I were the attacking team and it were called offside I'd be mad.

    In the old days it was easy, that was offside since there was no condition that you had to be actively involved or interfering with play. Of course the flip side of that is that if there had been a player standing by the corner flag the goal would never have stood because he would be offside.

    Perhaps they need to add to the rule to say if you are standing in the six-yard box then you are always considered interfering with play.
     
  24. Omar's Wacky Neighbor

    Omar's Wacky Neighbor Well-Known Member Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    6,380
    I'm looking at defender #8. Even tho defender eventually goes toward the ball to keep it out of the goal, he previously followed (reacted to) the offsides player toward the goal line (from where the defender tries to save the goal).

    That by itself has me leaning toward offsides.
     
  25. Average Reds

    Average Reds Well-Known Member Gold Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    21,370
    The attacker was clearly in an offsides position when the ball was headed, which is the determining factor. However, knowing he was offsides, he made a pointed attempt not to play the ball as it passed him, which is an important consideration in terms of allowing the ref the discretion to ignore his positioning. (Had the ball touched him, there would be no discretion, even if he was actively trying to avoid playing the ball.)

    The call could be defended either way, but to me, looking at it on replay, that's a goal. Actual me, calling it in real time, probably rules that offsides. (Which is why I'm not a ref.)
     
  26. lars10

    lars10 Well-Known Member Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,636
    To me the fact that the ball goes through his legs means offside. Although no defender could have got the ball he is in the way of anyone who could have tried to clear it. I’ve seen offside calls made when an attacking player was nowhere as close to the ball and didn’t make a play on it, but was called simply because they were in the vicinity and could have been a distraction. To me he’s gaining an advantage by taking a defender out of position.. does the defender try to maintain the offsides trap or follow a player that is offside? Are we also 100% that the keeper doesn’t react at all to a player that is possibly in his peripheral vision?

    Edit: apologies.. forgot about correct spelling for offside
     
    #26 lars10, Mar 12, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
  27. Zomp

    Zomp Turkey Virgin Dope

    Messages:
    10,528
    I see offside. Even though the keeper is stretched to get the ball I think the player does interfere.
     
  28. fletcherpost

    fletcherpost sosh's feckin' poet laureate Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,228
    Don't know about if it's a goal or offside...but can folks drop the 's' from 'offsides' - I dunno if it's a hangover from US Pro Football or other sports but there's no need to add the 's'.

    Note: the more seasoned posters in the forum know this. It's a little thing, but it does hurt the eyes to see the 's' in so many posts.

    I have no idea if the 'goal' is offside or onside...to quote every pundit under the sun - 'I've seen em given.'
     
  29. Schnerres

    Schnerres Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,484
    -The players position is offside, as a part (legs) of his body with which you can score are closer to the goal than 2nd defending player
    -he is not considered "active", as he does not interfere with any player
    --> the keeper is able to make his move
    --> the defender is able to make his move
    -nobody touches the ball and it goes into the net
    -attacker gives an effort to not touch the ball, else it would be an active offside (maybe go uncalled, because it was close)
    -in each of those replays, i don´t see a single hand/arm raise to show "REF! OFFSIDE! BLOW YOUR WHISTLE! HE WAS IN MY WAY!" So another point that nobody was disturbed by the attacker.

    If your a defender, you make your move. You are in no way stopped by another player in such a scrum of 15 players because you think "Oh, he´s offside. I cannot go for the ball." and therefore slow your movement. You also don´t know who is standing next to the corner flag and might keep someone onside, so you have to keep up playing all-in.

    OTOH, this is so close. I´m sure in 100 cases the same ref gives 45 goals, 45 offside and ten freekicks for whatever shirtpulling.
     
  30. BCsMightyJoeYoung

    BCsMightyJoeYoung Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    4,784
    What this seems to come down to is the definition of "interfering with another player".

    In my mind , if an offside player affects the decision making process of a involved defender in any way then it should trigger the offside.

    I'll use the aforementioned Kane/Lovren non call as an example. The ball is passed into Kane who is clearly offside. Lovren - who doesn't know this - makes a (unfortunately feeble) attempt to clear the ball. If he had just left it alone it would have been offside. However, he attempts to play it - which actually plays Kane onside. This makes no sense. Kane's presence in an offside position interfered with Lovren's actions.
     
  31. DennyDoyle'sBoil

    DennyDoyle'sBoil Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill SoSH Member

    Messages:
    20,486
    It’s a bang bang play for sure. On a banger, one school of high level reffing is to make the expected call. This is not always the presumptive call. The presumptive call here is probably goal. But all things considered I think offside is the expected call.
     
  32. CodPiece XL

    CodPiece XL Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,486

    Wasn't it Shankly or Clough who said "if a player is not interfering with play, they should not be on the pitch?" Just thought of this, did you guys in the cities call a throwin a shy? I never got that....I remember playing with some kids on Lewis who had moved to the Hebrides and they would call them shys. I was like "wot-the-fuck-is-a-shy?".
     
  33. ConigliarosPotential

    ConigliarosPotential Well-Known Member Silver Supporter SoSH Member

    Messages:
    3,578
    In cricket, the standard term for throwing the ball to try and get a batsman run out is "to shy at the stumps". So I assume it's the same root meaning?

    As for the goal in question, I agree that it is absolutely a judgement call as to whether the offside player is interfering with play, and it's one that can go either way - no refereeing assessor would find fault with the refs here either way, at least regarding the initial call. I often find it both amusing and depressing that such fine margins in sport can have almost literally (in cases like this) life-and-death ramifications: it's one thing for a dramatic moment like the Malcolm Butler interception to completely change the outcome of a sporting event late on, but for such drama to come after the Jesse James catch/non-catch in the Steelers-Pats game, or because someone's tiptoe was or wasn't on the sideline or a tennis shot was ruled in or out by the width of a human hair...in the abstract, I wish it were possible to for wins and losses to be marked in shades of gray, rather than always being so absolute.
     
  34. SumnerH

    SumnerH Malt Liquor Picker Dope

    Messages:
    25,155
    “Shy” meaning “to throw” is attested from the 18th century, but the origin is unknown.

    Even Webster's has it listed:
     
  35. finnVT

    finnVT Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    To me, it seems like by the time he's at the ball, he's actually inside the goal. At that point, he can't really be offside, since it's really too late to interfere with either the ball or a player. The only possibility to me is if his path towards the goal interferes with the defender (at that point, he seems far away and behind the goalie, so I don't see him interfering there). I don't see any interference with the defender en route, but that's the only moment where I think I could likely be swayed and see it as a toss-up call.
     
  36. CodPiece XL

    CodPiece XL Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    1,486
    I'm wondering is it a regional thing then. Maybe I'm making too much of a leap, coconut shy- the game where you throw at coconuts. Sorry for the derail, it just always seemed to be the players from the central belt of Scotand that used shy for a throwin.
     
  37. fletcherpost

    fletcherpost sosh's feckin' poet laureate Lifetime Member SoSH Member

    Messages:
    8,228
    Aye, we called it a shy.
     

Share This Page