The real issue is not about whether the goal was offside or not. It should be about why we allow an opposition player running down our left flank unmarked with miles of space. It should have been a clean and precise execution when 3-4 MU players run panic to cover the mistake.
CSKA’s “offside” goal
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
Must say that this rule was news to me as well !
I always thought if you are off the pitch then you don't count but it seems that this is only for attackers and not defenders which is a bit strange
I always thought if you are off the pitch then you don't count but it seems that this is only for attackers and not defenders which is a bit strange
There was a winning goal in Belgium like this this weekend. The player made a challenge and deliberately stayed off the pitch and Anderlecht scored. Flag went up. Referee overruled and gave the goal. Apparantly there is a difference when the player stays of deliberately or not. If he intents to come back in asap it should be a indirect free kick? If he stays out deliberately goal stands. Might be wrong but thats how i understood it in the belgan fuzz this weekend.
PS: not sure about this "Deliberately" spelling.
PS: not sure about this "Deliberately" spelling.
The condescending attitude in this post (and others in the match thread last night) seems to conveniently overlook the fact that Manchester United players did not know what the correct call was.
Carry on patting yourself on the back for being so amazing at rule intricacy knowing though.
Based off pundits it doesn't seem like players know quite a few rules though. Shockingly some are unaware of what a foul throw even is.
It reminds me of a situation when in school against my rival school who had 3-4 youth Canadian internationals. They scored but it was called back for offside since there was a defender behind the striker but the striker was behind the keeper. A lot of people don't seem to know that the keeper counts as a defender for offsides. No one on either side knew the rule (except for myself, I'd remembered reading about it in the rule book as a kid) and thought the ref was an idiot. Thankfully enough the ref knew too. Just goes to show being a great footballer doesn't mean you know the rules.
The ref was correct. The player can re-enter the game without the refs permission, so he was playing the CSKA player onside.
Tbf, that's pretty shocking.
Your spelling is correct. Deliberately staying off the pitch , yes I would agree and the goal should stand.
On angles I've seen the original shot was doubtful if it was going in and if it was deflected in why wasn't the goal given to the player who deflected into the net.
So if Blind slides off the pitch , smashes into the advertising hoardings, two metres, five metres or 20 metres behind the goal line and lies injured, the referee hasn't given permission for him to leave the field, won't stop the game because he is not 'interfering with play' -the irony- or seriously injured enough then Blind is effectively playing everyone onside. On the other hand he presumably cannot receive treatment either. And he is been injured by an outside force not on the field of play.
The referee then effectively has to say ' I give you permission to smash into the advertising hoardings'
If this is the rule, which it seems to be, although few people are aware of, then it is totally absurd and should be changed
I guess it goes both ways though as when you have a look at the matchday thread, you'll find posters who did label those who actually knew the rule correctly as idiots, only just to never even return to the thread when the actual rule became obvious to everyone.
I thought it was offside too. Just seems to be another rule change to skew the advantage in the attacking sides favor.
Or the four ex-pro's in the studio and the three former refs BT had to confer with.
I knew about the rule and was sure about it until an almost exact incident happened in a World Cup (IIRC) game that I dont really remember when. The pundits and professionals analyzed the crap out of it and concluded once the player was off the field, he was no longer taken into account when it comes to offside.
I think like 90% of the people didnt know the rule to be honest. Not even the pundits did. I suspected it only because of the Van Nistelrooy goal in 2008 and still had to look it up again.
Who cares, the game ended 2-1 anyway.
Given this happened at Euros in such a high profile manner I'm a bit surprised at the confusion among fans. Unsurprising for the players given how instinctive it all is but did it really affect anyone's behaviour or actions?
The alternative to this rule is you could have defenders stepping over the end line to catch people offside, or attackers "hiding" their to avoid offside traps.
The alternative to this rule is you could have defenders stepping over the end line to catch people offside, or attackers "hiding" their to avoid offside traps.
Blind was not injured. Not in the slightest. He neither asked for nor received treatment and was protesting against the goal.
The ref would stop the game if a player who was injured was offering a clear advantage to the offensive team in shifting the offside line.
Yeah was going to say this, wasnt Van Nistlerooy involved in the goal?
*Edit* yeah he scored.
This is correct. The goal should have been ruled out if only the one defender was closer to his goal line than the attacker. You are in an offside position if you are in the opposing half and are nearer to the opponent’s goal line than the ball and SECOND-LAST opponent. This usually means the goalkeeper will be the deepest opponent and an outfield player second deepest, but not exclusively. It amazes me how many people think offside line is based on the deepest opposition player and not the second deepest.
The referee doesn't stop the game unless there is a head injury or a team kicks the ball out of play, there are plenty of instances where a player is lying injured and playing people onside when on the field of play.
You've missed the point, what if Blind was lying injured and no ,the referee would not stop the game.
No, they regularly stop the game for non-head injuries. If the referee felt that Blind was seriously injured, the game would be stopped. Most players who stay down are not seriously injured, however. Refer to Law 5. Play is allowed to continue if the player is only deemed to be slightly injured.
Additionally, players who have been removed from the field of play due to injury are only allow to rejoin the match from the touch line (as opposed to goal line) if the ball is in play for this reason. If they could rejoin from the goal line, it could suddenly make their defence liable to a direct attack as they would be impacting the offside line.
Sometimes they do but I'm talking about a hypothetical case, I know Blind wasn't injured. Forget this particular incident.
If a player couldn't get back on the field for whatever reason, I've seen grounds that have moats and he couldn't get back on - it doesn't matter but according to this law if taken literally you would be playing people onside if through no fault of your own you were stranded behind the goal line and the game could continue because you're not on the field of play.
Thus my point is that the law is ridiculous and that it should only apply if players deliberately removed themselves from play.
I watched the game in Polish Canal Plus. The commentator is an ex player (finished his career about 8 years ago) and he understood the situation within a second. His explanation was consistent with the ruling.
The BT panel said they called a few referees at HT and even they didn't have a clue.
Didn't you watch the game to the end? The BT pundits brought up the rule and I don't think it was a change. I think it is just something that happens so rarely that the pundits in the studio weren't aware of it.
I'm very sure that half of the people claiming it as knowledge are chatting shit and just made an assumption one way or another. Also at least on my stream they said the rule straight away i just didn't believe them
Referees have a massive amount of discretion to interpret the laws of football, so the vast majority of silly, hypothetical scenarios can be dealt with a degree of common sense.
It wasn't CSKA's fault or anyone but Blind's fault that he hurled himself at a cross in vein with such velocity that he ended up several yards off the pitch. It was both a goal within the laws of the game and morally a just goal too. Blind through his well intentioned, albeit poor defending, shifted the offside line to Romero and put Dzagoev onside. Shift all of these players ten yards up the pitch, whereby Blind stay on the field, and the deflection would happen further out, but still in line with Blind, and it would be apparent to everyone that it was a legitimate goal, due to Blind's inadvertent error of putting Dzagoev onside.
Football would be a farce if the goal had not been given due to a technicality with the laws of the game that players leaving the goal line were no longer counted for the purposes of offside, whether they left cynically or otherwise.
So...
In theory.
If you brush your opponent out of the field with a shoulder v shoulder duel, and then cross to a striker in offside position he won't be in offside?
Should open up some ways of playing aggressive attacking football.
In theory.
If you brush your opponent out of the field with a shoulder v shoulder duel, and then cross to a striker in offside position he won't be in offside?
Should open up some ways of playing aggressive attacking football.
No because how could this plausibly happen? If you are brushing them out the goalline then the player crossing must be then by the goalline as well in which case his cross will be going backwards and can't be offside.So...
In theory.
If you brush your opponent out of the field with a shoulder v shoulder duel, and then cross to a striker in offside position he won't be in offside?
Should open up some ways of playing aggressive attacking football.
An attacker generally is not offside anyway in this instance anyway because:So...
In theory.
If you brush your opponent out of the field with a shoulder v shoulder duel, and then cross to a striker in offside position he won't be in offside?
Should open up some ways of playing aggressive attacking football.
A) the ball is presumably being crossed from the goal line or near to it
B) the defence is usually defending keeping their defensive line in line with the ball at a bare minimum and not allowing it behind them because it would be onside.
I think it's a fair enough rule - if you're stretched to the point where you're sitting off the pitch then you should be considered to be playing everyone on.
Enough force to get the opposing player out of the goal-line & then pick a cross where the attackers don't have to think about offside.
Not impossible even though improbable.
Generally not, so unlikely. But it does sound like a possibility with enough force to get him out of play from a bit of distance.
We've scored a few goals where an opposing player was off the pitch the last 2-3 seasons. So how are people not aware of this rule?
Precisely. I even fecking spelled this out in the OP.
Here's the vid, for anyone who missed it.
Skip to 0:52s.
You should ask Juan Mata the same question...
If you are shouldering with enough force to launch them a large distance to off the pitch then it will be a foul. In this hypothetical the goalline is irrelevant really anyway. Anywhere on the pitch you can shoulder the last defender 10 yards knocking him down and the offside line is now 10 yards further. No need to even knock him out the goalline.Enough force to get the opposing player out of the goal-line & then pick a cross where the attackers don't have to think about offside.
Not impossible even though improbable.
Generally not, so unlikely. But it does sound like a possibility with enough force to get him out of play from a bit of distance.
I was cursing the officials too in the Stretford End, but until I got home I had not noticed Blind on the floor and off the pitch.
Seen plenty of times it hasn't been called a foul.
I imagine a lot of people who were wrong on this issue, fans, pundits, players alike, have probably been quick to jump on the new rule myth.
This is bullshit, if the strike is off target and it deflects off a player to score a goal, the player it touched(deflected) off gets the credit.
If you are going to be pompous, at least be factual.
So presumably, in any instance a player goes flying off the pitch, perhaps due to foul play but the foul is not given...and something similar happens, the foul isn’t called correctly, but the offside/onside is?
I think it’s bizarre. The rule book cannot be specific to that degree and take away all interpretation of the situation from the referee, otherwise it creates more questions.
Similarly, I don’t think every tackle with studs is worthy of a red, it’s an occupational hazard ffs.
I think it’s bizarre. The rule book cannot be specific to that degree and take away all interpretation of the situation from the referee, otherwise it creates more questions.
Similarly, I don’t think every tackle with studs is worthy of a red, it’s an occupational hazard ffs.
To be fair, most footballers are morons - it's not surprising they wouldn't know the rules.