DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
RateTheRef
HTML https://ratetheref.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: General Discussion
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1415--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: October 2, 2018, 11:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuoCob link ---
>
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1410#msg1410
date=1538490640]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1402#msg1402
date=1538464591]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1400#msg1400
date=1538429300]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1303#msg1303
date=1538132985]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=165.msg1302#msg1302
date=1538122827]
> [quote author=bmb link=topic=165.msg1290#msg1290
date=1538077029]
> [quote author=bruntyboy link=topic=165.msg1288#msg1288
date=1538072264]
> Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for
offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2
Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another
VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than
it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many
permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split
second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is
an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the
game is played at these days!
[/quote]
I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside
positions that were having no impact on the game were being
unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when
Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an
offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have
cost United the treble that year!
[/quote]
Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise
that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being
deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have
had no impact on the game?
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?
[/quote]
I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the
law.
The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player
from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think
it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the
opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest
defender.
This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would
object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep
but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for
the attackers and one for the defenders?
The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has
to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the
game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside,
which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards
the halfway line.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.
The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal
hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player
who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is
doesn't gain any profit.
The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect
the game isn't really of relevance.
[/quote]
You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then
the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.
[/quote]
Well, actually I was.
But what you are arguing for would be a radical change where
goals are disallowed because a player was left completely
unmarked on the left wing when there were two defenders on the
opposite wing who weren't in a position to affect the play.
It sounds completely unworkable - so long as you don't put any
defender near the opposition's best player then you can claim
they're offside every time they get the ball! I fail to see how
it would improve the game at all or make officiating any easier.
#Post#: 1418--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
DIR By: QuoCob
Date: October 2, 2018, 11:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Readingfan link ---
>
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1412#msg1412
date=1538495314]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1410#msg1410
date=1538490640]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1402#msg1402
date=1538464591]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1400#msg1400
date=1538429300]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1303#msg1303
date=1538132985]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=165.msg1302#msg1302
date=1538122827]
> [quote author=bmb link=topic=165.msg1290#msg1290
date=1538077029]
> [quote author=bruntyboy link=topic=165.msg1288#msg1288
date=1538072264]
> Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for
offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2
Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another
VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than
it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many
permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split
second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is
an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the
game is played at these days!
[/quote]
I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside
positions that were having no impact on the game were being
unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when
Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an
offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have
cost United the treble that year!
[/quote]
Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise
that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being
deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have
had no impact on the game?
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?
[/quote]
I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the
law.
The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player
from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think
it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the
opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest
defender.
This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would
object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep
but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for
the attackers and one for the defenders?
The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has
to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the
game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside,
which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards
the halfway line.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.
The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal
hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player
who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is
doesn't gain any profit.
The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect
the game isn't really of relevance.
[/quote]
You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then
the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.
[/quote]
Well, actually I was.
But what you are arguing for would be a radical change where
goals are disallowed because a player was left completely
unmarked on the left wing when there were two defenders on the
opposite wing who weren't in a position to affect the play.
It sounds completely unworkable - so long as you don't put any
defender near the opposition's best player then you can claim
they're offside every time they get the ball! I fail to see how
it would improve the game at all or make officiating any easier.
[/quote]
I am not arguing, and agree that it would be a radical change
and a nightmare for officials to enforce/adjudicate.
I'm just demonstrating in this case how inequitable the Laws are
and wondering why attackers and defenders aren't treated
similarly within Law 11.
#Post#: 1422--------------------------------------------------
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
DIR By: Readingfan
Date: October 2, 2018, 12:56 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: QuoCob link ---
>
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1415#msg1415
date=1538496191]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1412#msg1412
date=1538495314]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1410#msg1410
date=1538490640]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1402#msg1402
date=1538464591]
> [quote author=Readingfan link=topic=165.msg1400#msg1400
date=1538429300]
> [quote author=QuoCob link=topic=165.msg1303#msg1303
date=1538132985]
> [quote author=ajb95 link=topic=165.msg1302#msg1302
date=1538122827]
> [quote author=bmb link=topic=165.msg1290#msg1290
date=1538077029]
> [quote author=bruntyboy link=topic=165.msg1288#msg1288
date=1538072264]
> Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for
offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2
Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another
VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than
it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many
permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split
second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is
an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the
game is played at these days!
[/quote]
I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside
positions that were having no impact on the game were being
unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when
Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an
offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have
cost United the treble that year!
[/quote]
Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise
that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being
deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have
had no impact on the game?
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?
[/quote]
I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the
law.
The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player
from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think
it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the
opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest
defender.
This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would
object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep
but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for
the attackers and one for the defenders?
The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has
to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the
game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside,
which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards
the halfway line.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.
The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal
hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player
who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is
doesn't gain any profit.
The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect
the game isn't really of relevance.
[/quote]
You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then
the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.
[/quote]
Well, actually I was.
But what you are arguing for would be a radical change where
goals are disallowed because a player was left completely
unmarked on the left wing when there were two defenders on the
opposite wing who weren't in a position to affect the play.
It sounds completely unworkable - so long as you don't put any
defender near the opposition's best player then you can claim
they're offside every time they get the ball! I fail to see how
it would improve the game at all or make officiating any easier.
[/quote]
I am not arguing, and agree that it would be a radical change
and a nightmare for officials to enforce/adjudicate.
I'm just demonstrating in this case how inequitable the Laws are
and wondering why attackers and defenders aren't treated
similarly within Law 11.
[/quote]
In which case, the simplest explanation would seem to be that
Law 11 was only introduced to prevent an attacker from
constantly being allowed to stand three yards out for the entire
game to score goals because it could diminish the spectacle of
the game and would give excessive advantages.
If the attacking player in an offside position isn't affecting
the game at all then the above factor is void and so the
lawmakers do not penalise this.
An attacking player could equally argue that it's inequitable
that a defender is allowed to stand in whatever position they
want in their own half without them committing an offence.
Fundamentally, the existence of the offside law benefits
defenders more than it does attackers, even if the recent
changes have limited that advantage a bit compared to before.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page