This new 'block the keeper's view' free kick routine

[Beachryan]

Is stupid, and should have been called offside by the current definition. If this is some of LVG's masterclass, makes me even more depressed.

Nice defending by Martial on the first one mind.

And of course, has nothing on Ando's dance

 

[George Owen]

we should attempt this one next

 

[Mrs Smoker]

Is stupid, and should have been called offside by the current definition.

What is that current definition? I don't think they should've been...didn't block the keeper at all.

 

[ivaldo]

Is stupid, and should have been called offside by the current definition. If this is some of LVG's masterclass, makes me even more depressed.

Nice defending by Martial on the first one mind.

And of course, has nothing on Ando's dance

It worked.. Well stupid

 

[Snow]

It worked.. Well stupid

Should pull the attackers jersey during set pieces as well. Usually works too.

 

[Scarecrow]

Is stupid, and should have been called offside by the current definition. If this is some of LVG's masterclass, makes me even more depressed.

Nice defending by Martial on the first one mind.

And of course, has nothing on Ando's dance

I doubt the manager (any manager) is involved in these kind of things, to be honest. Probably more of a players / coaches initiative.

It was stupid though.

 

[Šjor Bepo]

it was offside

 

[ivaldo]

Should pull the attackers jersey during set pieces as well. Usually works too.

If it works then yeah.

 

[MyOnlySolskjaer]

Frans Hoek

 

[charlenefan]

Best piece of defending all game was Martial's header

We're a fecking joke on the pitch we really are

 

[Alex99]

Keeper couldn't see the ball through the wall anyway. Our lads buggering about in his peripheral shouldn't have made a difference.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

It's blatantly offside and quite ridiculous but football people are generally thick so this is being looked on by Hoddle, Hargreaves et al as some maverick piece of genius.

 

[shabz]

They don't stand in front of the keeper so it's less obstructing than the wall is.

 

[Sid234]

Not offside for me, they were running away from the ball.. It was obvious they won't be attempting to touch the ball, and the GK was expecting it to his right because of where they were standing. They weren't obstructing his view of the ball really, rather making him think Mata might go for the far post

 

[Sammyjunn]

Wasnt offside, they didnt block the view and made no attempt to interfere with the play (fake heading, moving towards the ball etc).

 

[duffer]

Keeper couldn't see the ball through the wall anyway. Our lads buggering about in his peripheral shouldn't have made a difference.

What do you think they were doing there?

 

[ottosec]

3 men offside for the goal.

 

[duffer]

Wasnt offside, they didnt block the view and made no attempt to interfere with the play (fake heading, moving towards the ball etc).

They just showed a reply on BT sport and they were 100% in the way of his field of vision. What do you think they were doing there if not to get in the way?

 

[ottosec]

Wasnt offside, they didnt block the view and made no attempt to interfere with the play (fake heading, moving towards the ball etc).

Of course they blocked the view of the goalkeeper, that's the whole point of them being there.

 

[Sandikan]

what a bunch of dolts on this thread.

yeah how "stupid" it was eh... one of the only free kicks I can remember us scoring from for ages.

I look forward to more such "stupidity"

 

[Pexbo]

Is stupid, and should have been called offside by the current definition. If this is some of LVG's masterclass, makes me even more depressed.

Nice defending by Martial on the first one mind.

And of course, has nothing on Ando's dance

fecking hell just appreciate the fact we scored a goal you miserable git.

 

[Sylar]

So its stupid even though it worked? Kinda confused regarding the criticism here.

 

[ivaldo]

A player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position.

Active involvement plus offside position is the offence.

Being actively involved in the area of play is not the same as being in the area of active play.

While in an offside position, there are three things a player cannot do:
interfere with play
interfere with an opponent
gain an advantage by being in the offside position

 

[CassiusClaymore]

Wasnt offside, they didnt block the view and made no attempt to interfere with the play (fake heading, moving towards the ball etc).

 

[Sandikan]

It's blatantly offside and quite ridiculous but football people are generally thick so this is being looked on by Hoddle, Hargreaves et al as some maverick piece of genius.

would you prefer Memphis punting it into Row ZZ?
I wouldn't.

Look back over time at other free kicks/corners. Blocking off runners, I remember Forrest v Tottenham in 91 or so, some Forrest guy literally ran and barged a Tottenham man to the floor as Pearce lashed in!

 

[Skizzo]

fecking hell just appreciate the fact we scored a goal you miserable git.

I'm pissed off at Vangle, but EVEN MORE PISSED OFF THAT HE MIGHT HAVE GOTTEN US TO SCORE!

 

[edcunited1878]

The GK is already has an obstructed view on all direct free kicks by virtue of the defensive wall. The players are situated behind the defensive wall on the far post side. The ball is kicked over the wall, to the near post side.

If the shot is to the far post, causing the ball to go around the offensive players, then that can be deemed obstruction. But that wasn't the case with Mata's shot as it was to the near post, where there were no United players at all.

 

[friendlytramp]

I assume the purpose of running out at full speed is to get on side before the ball is kicked. Not sure if they managed it (but wasn't there a Shrewsbury player standing with them any way?)

 

[Scarecrow]

So its stupid even though it worked? Kinda confused regarding the criticism here.

It didn't do anything except give a reason to the referee to disallow the goal. Mata scored because the shot was good, not because of our offside players.

 

[duffer]

A player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position.

Active involvement plus offside position is the offence.

Being actively involved in the area of play is not the same as being in the area of active play.

While in an offside position, there are three things a player cannot do:
interfere with play
interfere with an opponent
gain an advantage by being in the offside position

The bit in bold is why the ref should have given offside. They were trying to obscure the goalie's vision.

 

[Sammyjunn]

They just showed a reply on BT sport and they were 100% in the way of his field of vision. What do you think they were doing there if not to get in the way?

Distracting?

 

[duffer]

I assume the purpose of running out at full speed is to get on side before the ball is kicked. Not sure if they managed it (but wasn't there a Shrewsbury player standing with them any way?)

Yep.

 

[CassiusClaymore]

would you prefer Memphis punting it into Row ZZ?
I wouldn't.

Look back over time at other free kicks/corners. Blocking off runners, I remember Forrest v Tottenham in 91 or so, some Forrest guy literally ran and barged a Tottenham man to the floor as Pearce lashed in!

Who said I'd prefer that? I'm happy we scored but attempts to defend it as a legit tactic are silly. They tried to run back onside for a reason.

 

[Red_Manc_M15]

To the people morning about it being offside are you United supporters? I couldn't give a rats arse if it was it was a hell of a free kick by Mata.

 

[duffer]

Distracting?

How is that not "interfering with an opponent"?

 

[Sammyjunn]

The bit in bold is why the ref should have given offside. They were trying to obscure the goalie's vision.

Werent they in front of the other post?

 

[Sammyjunn]

How is that not "interfering with an opponent"?

If you choose to be distracted. Maybe I remember it wrong but they werent right in front of the keeper were they? They were to on the side to the other post.

 

[duffer]

Werent they in front of the other post?

Nope, right between the goalie and the dead ball.

 

[ottosec]

 

[Skizzo]

The bit in bold is why the ref should have given offside. They were trying to obscure the goalie's vision.

I believe the rule also states "in the referees opinion, if the following occur..."

So maybe he understands the law, and in his opinion, deemed it not to meet the requirements for offside.