|
|
Topic Originator: Alf
Date: Sun 17 May 01:31
Because Maeda didn`t receive the pass, the ball was played out to Osmand who is onside, when he plays the ball across Maeda is behind the ball so he`s onside
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Sun 17 May 01:36
I got it now Alf. The You tube picture I saw only showed Maeda`s position when the ball was played to Osmand, which just confused the matter. I`ll try and put the correct picture here:
https://www.instagram.com/p/DYasmMpAcxf/
Post Edited (Sun 17 May 01:53)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Pars11
Date: Sun 17 May 02:21
IMO Maeda is offside during the build up, that is why he got flagged. He was onside when he got the ball. The correct decision was offside during the build up as he was clearly interfering with play.
Bluebell Polka
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Sun 17 May 06:43
Quote:
Pars11, Sun 17 May 02:21
IMO Maeda is offside during the build up, that is why he got flagged. He was onside when he got the ball. The correct decision was offside during the build up as he was clearly interfering with play.
Whilst I agree with you in principle - he is interfering with play because he influences the position of the defensive line - that`s not what the rules say. These basically say you have to be the intended recipient of the pass, or attempt to play the ball to be offside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Sun 17 May 08:01
Quote:
Bandy, Sun 17 May 06:43
Quote:
Pars11, Sun 17 May 02:21
IMO Maeda is offside during the build up, that is why he got flagged. He was onside when he got the ball. The correct decision was offside during the build up as he was clearly interfering with play.
Whilst I agree with you in principle - he is interfering with play because he influences the position of the defensive line - that`s not what the rules say. These basically say you have to be the intended recipient of the pass, or attempt to play the ball to be offside.
The lawmakers (IFAB) have made the Laws of the Game far more complex than they used to be, especially the offside and handball. I often think we should go back to the previous versions;
Handball - intentional or non intentional.
Offside - interfering/ not interfering with the play*
*Bill Shankly famously said, "If you`re not interfering with the play, you shouldn`t be on the pitch! 😀
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Sacktheref69
Date: Sun 17 May 08:26
I hate that celtic won the league but no issues with any of the goals Maeda wasn`t offside and the penalty is a stone waller.
This is Andy Tod`s world and we are lucky to live in it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Sun 17 May 08:51
The former offside rules, or rather their interpretations, were long overdue review.
Goals disallowed because a player was in an offside position despite being as much a spectator in the proceedings as those in the crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: phutupfeet
Date: Sun 17 May 12:14
It could be argued that he gained an advantage as had a yrd head start on the defenders making him favourite to get to the cross.
IMO any offside on the penalty area has to have an influence on the play.
Partick 2nd goal the other night, the player lying on the ground cause Tirrell to hesitate for a second, creatingthe no mans land. Not actually interfering with the direct play but caused an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Sun 17 May 12:16
Quote:
veteraneastender, Sun 17 May 08:51
The former offside rules, or rather their interpretations, were long overdue review.
Goals disallowed because a player was in an offside position despite being as much a spectator in the proceedings as those in the crowd.
🤣
Then surely Partick’s second was offside due to their player lying flat out in an ‘offside position’?
Or that he was interfering with play as our lot thought the game was being halted to attend to him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Tad Allagash
Date: Sun 17 May 12:32
Quote:
phutupfeet, Sun 17 May 12:14
It could be argued that he gained an advantage as had a yrd head start on the defenders making him favourite to get to the cross.
IMO any offside on the penalty area has to have an influence on the play.
Partick 2nd goal the other night, the player lying on the ground cause Tirrell to hesitate for a second, creatingthe no mans land. Not actually interfering with the direct play but caused an issue.
I like your penalty area idea. The Maeda goal doesn’t happen unless he starts in an offside position, so it doesn’t seem fair.
But if you watch footage from the 1974 World Cup, the Dutch team made a mockery of the old offside rule with their aggressive offside trap, so that didn’t work either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: thebear
Date: Mon 18 May 09:19
Previously definitely offside, but new rules and dodgy var onside
This will happen regularly through the year, some will be given some won't.
Think the rules need changing, as he could be standing on goal line affecting the keepers thought process, but does not get ball so not offside.
Post Edited (Mon 18 May 09:21)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: dd23
Date: Tue 19 May 11:19
As what happened to Terrell at particks second goal, the boy lying in the box definitely affected his thought process hence he ended up in no man’s land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
