|
Bolton vs Leicester: Offside controversy...
|
View this Thread in Original format
| razmataz |
Ok, I don't understand what the issue is. Many people are blaming FIFA for abruptly changing the rules when in fact the offside rule was the same since 1994. Its just that not many people understood what it meant.
Too many times I would see a ref call offside while a team is attacking on the left hand side and there is an attacker offside on the right. So now its in writing.
I didn't see the game but from what I hear the Bolton players were causing "distraction". Surely, if they are in an offside position they can't do any harm as as soon as they touch the ball a foul is called. So why would the players or the goalie be distracted? Unless the players are in his line of view and obstructing him ofcourse.
Bolton capitalized on media hype, not the rules. If the players were truly interfering with play (eg. standing right in front of the goalie, blocking his view) then the referee should have called offside. Otherwise, no. |
|
|
| mentalbarter |
I dont think there was a problemn with what bolton were doing, in fact i think they were wasting players by doing it
I agree they are not "active" because the defenders do not need to adjust their positions to deal with them
But i think if a player in an offside position causes the defenders to have to move then that should constitute "active" because they may cause a defender to step up and then this defender might not be able to get back to make a saving tackle or whatever |
|
|
| TiestoFanMatt |
There is no such thing as not interfearing with play, unless you are not on the field playing football.
Fifa released an intepretation to the FA about how offsides should be seen, the rules have not been changed, just bent really.
| quote: | | Many people are blaming FIFA for abruptly changing the rules when in fact the offside rule was the same since 1994. Its just that not many people understood what it meant. |
FIfa introduced the intepretation during this season, half way through. If it was done during pre-season, managers, coaches and players could all be shown the rules and what they meant, what has happened is the FA, who have no idea themselves, have had to enforce a very ambigious rule for the ref's to apply.
| quote: | | Too many times I would see a ref call offside while a team is attacking on the left hand side and there is an attacker offside on the right. So now its in writing. |
If that player then croses the ball to the other bloke and he scores, im sured ud think that it was offside? of course, because being in front of the line means he had a 'headstart' in getting to the box and scoring!
| quote: | | didn't see the game but from what I hear the Bolton players were causing "distraction". Surely, if they are in an offside position they can't do any harm as as soon as they touch the ball a foul is called. |
Bolton and Sam just showed what a farce the rule is and how stupid it is
| quote: | | I dont think there was a problemn with what bolton were doing, in fact i think they were wasting players by doing it. agree they are not "active" because the defenders do not need to adjust their positions to deal with them. But i think if a player in an offside position causes the defenders to have to move then that should constitute "active" because they may cause a defender to step up and then this defender might not be able to get back to make a saving tackle or whatever |
This confused me lol. From what i think you mean, for a player to be offside, a defender has to have altered what he would have done to somethnig else? I dont know?
The rule is a farce and linesman and refs get enough stick as it is and this isnt going to help them! |
|
|
| razmataz |
| quote: | Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt
If that player then croses the ball to the other bloke and he scores, im sured ud think that it was offside? of course, because being in front of the line means he had a 'headstart' in getting to the box and scoring! |
Therin lies the definition. He is "interfering". What if the player is walking back from an offside position to get back onside? Or what if he's lying down injured?
Its not difficult. He is involved with play = offside. If not then no offside.
A popular quote in the press is "if you're on the field you are interfering with play, if you're not interfering than what are you doing on the field". Not sure who said it but I do agree that he has a point. However, thats akin to saying oh look the midfielder who took the corner is offside so the goal should not be allowed. Or the forward who crossed the ball is offside etc. Ofcourse, that would be silly.
A beautiful goal that comes to mind to justify why this rule should stand is Romario's goal vs Holland in 1/4 finals of WC 94. Bebeto who was in an offside position walked over the ball nonchalantly and let Romario who was running in from an onside position to score. That was 10 years ago and it surprises me that the FA still don't understand the rule. |
|
|
| TiestoFanMatt |
| quote: | Originally posted by razmataz
Therin lies the definition. He is "interfering". What if the player is walking back from an offside position to get back onside? Or what if he's lying down injured?
Its not difficult. He is involved with play = offside. If not then no offside.
A popular quote in the press is "if you're on the field you are interfering with play, if you're not interfering than what are you doing on the field". Not sure who said it but I do agree that he has a point. However, thats akin to saying oh look the midfielder who took the corner is offside so the goal should not be allowed. Or the forward who crossed the ball is offside etc. Ofcourse, that would be silly.
A beautiful goal that comes to mind to justify why this rule should stand is Romario's goal vs Holland in 1/4 finals of WC 94. Bebeto who was in an offside position walked over the ball nonchalantly and let Romario who was running in from an onside position to score. That was 10 years ago and it surprises me that the FA still don't understand the rule. |
It just seems that the way that FIFA have brought this into the game during pre=season with this intepretation is all wrong.
http://www.skysports.com/skysports/...1123027,00.html
I think Andy Gray literally explains why this rule is wrong for the game at the moment. Linesman have a hard enough job as it is. Why do they want t complicate it even more? The very fact that we're debating it just shows just how much a grey area is?
I never saw the Romareo goal to comment on it but you gotta remember on the training ground, defenders learn to play people offside, its no good no trying to play someone offside when they can simply trot back and someone from midfield simply run through and score, its just not fair beacuse coaches work long and hard on that, yet the law changes mid season, so the teams have little time to get to know the new rule. |
|
|
| Ian^ |
As a Bolton fan I think it was clever, Leicester tried to use a ton of mindgames on us before the game, hypnotists, saying they were going to win etc, and we used something that's within current rules on them to unsettle, though Walker is a e keeper anyway :stongue:
What Andy Gray failed to mention was how southampton tried it the prev saturday on occasion and how Van Nistelrooy has been doing it for ages if not as eccentric a gap and has scored many goals from that, and United in general get the decisions their way, just nice to see a smaller team using it for once ;) :D |
|
|
| tall paul 2 |
The Football Association have confirmed that clubs will be outlawed from taking advantage of the new interpretation of the offside rule.
Problems have arisen after Fifa issued a new interpretation of the offside rule, which meant a player would only be offside if he was actively involved in play.
This caused controversy almost immediately, with Manchester United's Ruud van Nistelrooy pouncing against Southampton after coming from an offside position.
Following this incident Bolton and Leicester both took the new ruling to extreme measures by deliberately placing players in offside positions - but far enough from the play that they were not interfering.
Premiership and Football League officials are ready to announce that any player using the new method will be penalised for 'improper conduct'.
"Bolton's plan was technically within the letter of the law but contrary to the spirit of the game," said an FA spokesman.
"Referees will now be told that if a player is seeking to circumvent the rules they should be cautioned for improper conduct." |
|
|
| Ian^ |
| quote: | Originally posted by tall paul 2
"Bolton's plan was technically within the letter of the law but contrary to the spirit of the game," said an FA spokesman.
"Referees will now be told that if a player is seeking to circumvent the rules they should be cautioned for improper conduct." |
Typical FA, they'd best to it to 'Ruuuuuuuuud' Too as well as anyone else, if he's half a yard offside when its played, even if he goes back, I want him called too, so the fa's old double standards don't come in again |
|
|
| TiestoFanMatt |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ian^
Typical FA, they'd best to it to 'Ruuuuuuuuud' Too as well as anyone else, if he's half a yard offside when its played, even if he goes back, I want him called too, so the fa's old double standards don't come in again |
I watched the interview with the FA on skysports and he said Bolton would have penalised but Ruud wouldnt! how is it, he does it all the time being deliberate running from the goalkeeper to the area, and he did it against southampton! |
|
|
| Ian^ |
| quote: | Originally posted by TiestoFanMatt
I watched the interview with the FA on skysports and he said Bolton would have penalised but Ruud wouldnt! how is it, he does it all the time being deliberate running from the goalkeeper to the area, and he did it against southampton! |
More like they don't have the balls to do it to United :rolleyes: so they try & make his sound ok. I'll be interested to see how it goes next time, as will more clubs just try to replicate Ruud etc, therefore meaning they'd have to outlaw what he does too.
Same thing as refs and the lack of penalties @ OT, like Shearers this year, you cannot tell me they'd have turned it down had it been united, shameless to be honest |
|
|
|
|
