Discussion in 'Manchester United Forum' started by Pogue Mahone, Dec 6, 2017.
Maybe. Although this particular footballer is clearly smarter than most.
He didn't state otherwise though.
Fair enough if that’s the rule. They should have given the goal to the player who got the last touch then, if indeed he is active.
The initial shot was going wide as it is.
I think you are focusing on the wrong point about being off the pitch here. In your scenario, same can be said if we were higher up the pitch. You could foul a player (foul not called) and the fouled player could inadvertently play your team onside. Whether the guy is off the pitch or not shouldn’t matter, unless there is genuinely something like a moat stopping him from coming back in.
Imagine a scenario whereby being off a pitch means a defender is not counted. We will have offside traps where the defender launches him “accidentally” out of the pitch to catch the striker offside. This could happen since the distance to get off the pitch may be shorter than running up to play a striker offside.
Just realised this is the first time Ive heard Mata speak. He sounds like a bond villain
I honestly didn't know the niceties of the 'being off the pitch' part of the rules. Not sure how, I just never seem to have come across this situation before. Because in reality Blind was never going to be able to get back on the pitch during that particular goalscoring situation, it didn't seem totally crazy to consider him inactive. Obviously hearing the actual rule now it makes perfect sense. I just had a blind spot I guess. Apparently so do plenty of professional players and pundits!
What did somewhat confuse the whole issue was UEFA inexplicably giving the goal to the wrong player. There's obviously no grey area at all there. If the ball only touches attacking players, the last one to touch it in any way before it crosses the line is always the goalscorer. I'm surprised to see anyone on here talking about whether the original shot was on target or not, that's clearly irrelevant. Will UEFA correct their mistake?
There was no confusion at my end. The commentator knew the rule and he's not been affiliated with professional football. All the pundits knew (ex-footballers). All the people behind the scenes knew (no one affiliated with professional football). There was no confusion here, only surprising that Mata thought it was a new rule which they laughed at.
I think most people knew it was offside and I'm surprised that so many people here didn't know but less surprised at the confusion because unqualified personnel on TV seemed to be the source. I don't know how á country that is so involved with football struggle so much with decent punditry. Now knowing thus rule should be a sackable offense. I mean why else are you there?
Must have hit a nerve.
What exactly does the bolded part prove? That a lot of footballers are thick? In that case you're just reinforcing my point that BT's 'expert panel' with thousands of games between them not knowing the rules is shocking. Mata calling it 'a new rule' is just laughable and sums up footballers in general.
Quite unbelievable that so many actually thought that you don't count anymore the moment your body leaves the goal line during an in-play action. If Blind's slide ends outside of the goal line = offside. If Blind's slide ends within the goal line = no offside. Where on earth is the common sense? How can anyone use that logic and seriously claim that this is offside:
I don't have a problem with people not knowing every rule (I don't even know every rule myself!) but at least people should have the decency to do a quick google search before making false assumptions and claims. I'll carry on having a laugh every time there is an outrage and total disbelief despite the referee quite obviously making the right decision.
The feck are you on about? Did you even read my post?
Not at all, you were just being a bit of a knob to be honest.
What about the scenario of player (a) being tackled on the goal line by player (b) and playing the ball back towards play and player (b) continues his tackle behind the line and fouls player (a), Is/has a penalty ever being given as both players are deemed to be still on the field of play.
It would be a drop ball. Fouls can only be committed on the field of play. Players could still be given yellow or red cards though.
It’s why the referees, especially in the top flight should be able to have discretion to interpret play - given their elite status.
If there is a foul or accidental collision causing a defender to fly off the pitch, they can’t be deemed the last defender imo. If a play walks off the pitch for no apparent reason or there is no logic behind them somehow exiting the field of play, then of course they’re playing the attack onside.
The blanket approach always favours the attacker no matter the situation. I get giving the striker the BoD in a touch and go situation, but this one is a bit too far the other way.
Luckily it wasn’t a determinative factor last night, and luckily it hasn’t been that common.
If there was a foul, the referee would give a free kick to the defending team. If there was an accidental collision then the defender should be more careful, the same as Blind should have been last night when he threw himself off the pitch. In fairness, the chance of this biting you in the arse is slim so it was still the right decision to try and block the cross.
So if Blind was still active even though he slid off the pitch and behind the keeper didn't DeGea become the 2nd last defender and actually play the guy onside then?
I'm sure i've seen a few goals be disallowed from corners with a defender standing on the post.
That's why I knew there was no controversy, because the bolded is correct.
Yup. The offside line is drawn at the second last defender (including the GK). In this instance the line is drawn with Romero so if the scorer had been behind Romero then it would have been offside.
In the case below Courtois is way out of goal so the line is drawn at the Chelsea bloke in line with Murray.
Yea, this was definitely a weirder decision from that situation.
I don't think the rule has recently changed in principle. I think it has been clarified a couple of times over the past decade though, because I have a feeling there used to be more discretion/ambiguity in it. It's now clearly written that the involuntary circumstances don't help (they just stop you getting booked), even if it's an opponent's action that carries you over the line. So, in other words, strange as it looks - it's the right call.
Might of got this one wrong actually. This was actually changed when kickoffs were a year and a bit ago. It would be a freekick or penalty based on nearest point of goal line or side line: https://www.shortlist.com/entertainment/sport/football-rule-law-changes/75160
Complete bollocks... talk about making the game complicated for complicated sake. So much for football being a 'simple game,' that type of scenario has to be offside... anything else takes the game into the realm of the Stephen Hawkings' and Robbie Savages' of the world.
Imagine losing a Champions League final on a decision like that. On second thoughts.... don't.
Here is what the IFAB say in terms of defenders getting injured off the back of the field during an opponent’s attack:
Q5: For how long is a defending player who goes off the field of play during an opponents’ attack technically on the goal line for offside? It is unfair that a defender who goes off the field of play (often through injury) remains ‘active’ on the goal line until play next stops as play can continue for a long time. The new wording makes it clear that once the defending team has cleared the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside their penalty area, that ‘phase of play’ has ended and the defender is no longer ‘active’ for offside. This will require alertness from assistant referees and good communication between the referee and assistant.
Referees have a lot of discretion in football
On 3rd thoughts... beating city like that?
Imagine what? Scoring a legitimate goal that many mugs couldn’t understand properly? Hardly the Montreal Screwjob.
I don't have a problem with fans not understanding all the rules. I do have a problem with players who are paid a lot of money to understand the rules not knowing it. And refs whose job it is to understand it - and especially pundits who are also paid a lot of money. I wouldn't mind, but it happens with pundits far too often - especially ex players who are convinced there's been no rule changes since they played years ago.
I know this goal should stand because of the law, the goal also should have been given to the player who touched the ball last, but strangely wasn't.
You keep stating obvious things and obviously you can't answer the point I made.
Now that you mention it i completely forgot it was Romero in goal last night. Was thinking it was DeGea.
About injured players? Or your hypothetically stranded players in a moat? The IFAB have clarified that and I posted six or seven posts above.
As to who the goal should have been awarded to, the laws of the game have no governance over this. Different bodies have different directives on how goals should be awarded/recorded. It is usually left to the referee to decided, but does vary by governing body. Both the Premier League and EFL have Dubious Goals Committes to retroactively resolve disputed goals. The EFL used to leave it to clubs to decided, but there were farcical scenes when clubs awarded clear own goals to their own attacking players. I believe the Premier League’s may now be done in real time.
Generally in the UK the goal is awarded to the last attacker to touch the ball, or if a defender touched it last, then if the original shot was on target, then the goal is awarded to the shooter, otherwise it goes down as an own goal, but this policy is not necessarily followed elsewhere. Fifa are certainly more disposed to award the shooter with the goal as this article on own goals shows. If UEFA are similarly minded, I can see why the referee awarded it to Vitinho.
I agree referees should have discretion. But in this case, the discretion decision that Blind played the guy onside is correct. Like I said, just imagine the same incident happened higher up the pitch, a defender getting into an accidental collision, hence playing the attacker onside. Should we then deem the attacker offsite?
How is it simpler that sliding but landing just inside the pitch = onside, but sliding and landing slightly out of the pitch = offside? Surely it is so much more simpler to just say that the player is active if they slide off, and therefore the scenario here would be that this goal is onside either way.
Also this leaving alone the whole can of worms that could open with such a rule...does it have to be the whole of the player out of the line? Or partially? Just imagine giving the touchline refs another thing to mess up!
It is so much more simpler the way it is. Not to mention it just seems like common sense! I don't know why the defence would be rewarded for a player running/sliding off the field.
About players who end up behind the goal line through no fault of their own and can't get back on the field for whatever reason but apparently would be playing the attacking team onside.
About the scorer , the ball wouldn't have gone in if it hadn't hit Dzagoev and it wasn't an own goal so don't know why you're referring to dubious goals, if it was a goal it was Dzagoev's, no question, it's not a dubious goal in that sense.
No player leaves the pitch and can’t get back on their own through no fault of their own. Either the opponent has fouled you or you have lacked care and regard for your own movement. Blind threw himself off the pitch. No-one else.
Dubious goals panels deal with non-own goals too, albeit a lot more rarely. The laws of football are not concerned with the identity of a goalscorer, and the directives in place for determining goalscorers differ across jurisdictions. I have no problem with Vitinho being awarded the goal on the basis that he was the player shooting and was the who had the agency in scoring the goal. As long as the jurisdiction is consistent I don’t see the problem. There’s logical arguments for both camps. I can’t find UEFA’s policy, but the NCAA for instance would have awarded it to Vitinho too see 4.1.5: http://fs.ncaa.org/Docs/stats/Stats_Manuals/Soccer/2009ez.pdf
What do you think he said? To me he's saying "whether the original shot was going in or not the last one to touch it gets the goal under his name."
The last one to touch it if the ball is on target doesn't get the goal if it is a deflection.
Cleared up by Uefa back in '08, so this bloke is wrong.
More specifically the below
“There has been a lot of debate over deflected goals and whether they should be awarded to the player who originally shot at goal or the player who got the last touch,” president Michel Platini told reporters. “We want to clear the issue up and have the same rules at every match.”
Platini said referees would be told to award a goal to the player who intended to score, provided the ball was already heading towards the net when the deflection occurred.
Off-target shots diverted into the net will be attributed to the player who deflects the ball.
So just to clarify, what happens in the case that you left the field without the ref's permission, maybe making a block to put the ball out of play, and the other team restart the play and score before you have a chance to get back on the pitch, tying your boot for example? Are you not active because it's the next phase of play?
Stop embarrassing yourself already. The article you’re linking to is talking about OWN GOALS. Read the headline ffs:
UEFA lays down formal own goal guidelines
I’m talking about the last ATTACKING player to get a touch gets credited the goal (if no defensive player touches it after him) regardless of whether the original shot was on target or not. It could be a rocket flying into the back of net but if it brushes the laces of another attacker on the way in, that last attacker gets credited the goal.
At least learn the difference between an own goal and a normal goal before being so pompous.
As per the rules it says if the ball is cleared and it is a 'new phase of play' then you are not active and it would be offside. I imagine going out of bounds would fall under this. I think the ref would usually make sure the player is back on the pitch though anyway before play resumes.
It doesn't necessarry have to be a defender.
If you're 2v1 against the gk, and you pass the ball backwards to your teammate who is behind you, it's not offside either.
Not relevant on this goal, or in the other one in your picture, but the way you worded it
Separate names with a comma.