Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The first goal I thought was not offside according to the laws by FIFA as he has not touched the ball. How is the second goal not offside?
First goal offside. Second goal not offside. Simple.
The Adventures Of Batmanu Eboué & Robin Van Persie - WengersExcuses is the voice of reason on ja606: Please explain
Suarez was interfering with play whilst being in an offside position, hence by the laws of the game he was offside.
Who cares we got the 3 points now and it can't be changed. What goes around comes around
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
According to the rules, interfering with play means touching the ball which he didn't.
Agree with greatteamswinit4times.
In my opinion the first goal was offside, but its so marginal you can understand in real time the linesman not giving it one day and then giving it the next, its not like he was clearly offside. But he was offside. The ball didnt get to him but he was pressuring the defender and forced the mistake and was therefore involved in the play.
The second goal in my opinion was not offside by the rules in their current form. He was offside when the ball was passed to Miereles but was not involved in the passage of play directly, and was then onside when the ball was played to him.
I dont agree with the interpretation of the rule for the second goal personally as a defender myself. When a striker is in that position whether he gets the ball or not he affects the defenders mindset and also his positioning and that can create space for the onside player as the defender moves to cover a return pass in the 'next phase' of play. But by the current interpretation of the law he isnt offside.
Thats my two cents.
"According to the rules, interfering with play means touching the ball which he didn't."
But he attempted to touch the ball.
Both weren't offside. The first Suarez wasn't in an active position when the pass was made. Miguel then panicked when the ball came at him, Suarez was now onside and Miguel kicked it off his own player. Had he kicked it off Suarez, then he would have been offside. Since Suarez had no interference then he wasn't given as offside.
The second was more clear. A pass was made to Mereiles, Suarez wasn't in an active position and by the time Mereiles passed to Suarez, he was now onside.
Both legitimate goals according to the rules, however I don't agree with these rules. If a player is offside and close to the ball, then he should be deemed offside in my opinion.
Well poll said they were on side, as if you do not touch the ball, you can't be offside!
I didn't even realise there was any debate over the second one? First one was off, though - IMO. Yeah he didn't touch the ball, but he was actively in play at the time...
I dont agree with the interpretation of the rule for the second goal personally as a defender myself. When a striker is in that position whether he gets the ball or not he affects the defenders mindset and also his positioning and that can create space for the onside player as the defender moves to cover a return pass in the 'next phase' of play. But by the current interpretation of the law he isnt offside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would apply this to both goals, as stated on the FIFA website, active play begins when the player touches the ball or if in the next phase the ball comes off the attacker after being hit by the defender. Also I agree with you that this active play law is stupid.
Both weren't offside. The first Suarez wasn't in an active position when the pass was made. Miguel then panicked when the ball came at him, Suarez was now onside and Miguel kicked it off his own player. Had he kicked it off Suarez, then he would have been offside. Since Suarez had no interference then he wasn't given as offside.
The second was more clear. A pass was made to Mereiles, Suarez wasn't in an active position and by the time Mereiles passed to Suarez, he was now onside.
Both legitimate goals according to the rules, however I don't agree with these rules. If a player is offside and close to the ball, then he should be deemed offside in my opinion.
---------
Oh god, not this again.
According to the rules, interfering with play means touching the ball which he didn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are actually 3 reasons you can give offside.
1. Interfering with play.
2. Interfering with an opponent
3. Gaining an advantage.
For the first goal he was offside for reason 2 - interfering with an opponent.
If Miquel was under no pressure, he would not have had to try and hack it away.
The second goal was not offside as the cross into the box counts as the start of a new phase of play.
Must admit as a Goon, I was surprised there was any debate for the second goal. Anyone who knows about the application of "phases of play" should know it was onside. The 1st goal though was clearly offside as far as I'm concerned.
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It seems to me that this active not active business has been devised by someone that has either not played much competitive football, or has not played in defence!! A striker, on or offside is an active presence in the mind of a defender at all times and every movement they make effects the defenders positioning and decision making.
At least they do when I'm playing, but maybe thats because I'm too slow to catch anyone that gets away from me!
If you can get a clip of when something similar to the second goal has been given offside then I'll pay attention.
This isn't politics, it is football.
Why has noone used this comparison.
Imagine Reina plays the ball to carragher whilst suarez is offside and carragher then hoofs it up to suarez whilst he's now onside. Would anyone consider that offside? No they wouldn't
IMO it makes no difference where you are on the pitch. It's onside
comment by TalksRubbish (U3303)
posted 12 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It seems to me that this active not active business has been devised by someone that has either not played much competitive football, or has not played in defence!! A striker, on or offside is an active presence in the mind of a defender at all times and every movement they make effects the defenders positioning and decision making.
At least they do when I'm playing, but maybe thats because I'm too slow to catch anyone that gets away from me!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an absolutely idiotic rule in my opinion. This rule was made to appease the fools who couldn't understand the not interfering with play rule. So they dumbed it down to mean touching the ball or interfering with play.
comment by iCraft uGraft - Believable Tekkers (U1193)
Sorry but if it is being discussed again then it is obviously still debatable to some people. Just thought I would try to teach a few people this new stupid offside law.
Sign in if you want to comment
Were goals against Arsenal offside?
Page 1 of 2
posted on 26/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/8/11
The first goal I thought was not offside according to the laws by FIFA as he has not touched the ball. How is the second goal not offside?
posted on 26/8/11
First goal offside. Second goal not offside. Simple.
posted on 26/8/11
Who cares!
posted on 26/8/11
The Adventures Of Batmanu Eboué & Robin Van Persie - WengersExcuses is the voice of reason on ja606: Please explain
posted on 26/8/11
Suarez was interfering with play whilst being in an offside position, hence by the laws of the game he was offside.
posted on 26/8/11
Who cares we got the 3 points now and it can't be changed. What goes around comes around
posted on 26/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/8/11
According to the rules, interfering with play means touching the ball which he didn't.
posted on 26/8/11
Agree with greatteamswinit4times.
In my opinion the first goal was offside, but its so marginal you can understand in real time the linesman not giving it one day and then giving it the next, its not like he was clearly offside. But he was offside. The ball didnt get to him but he was pressuring the defender and forced the mistake and was therefore involved in the play.
The second goal in my opinion was not offside by the rules in their current form. He was offside when the ball was passed to Miereles but was not involved in the passage of play directly, and was then onside when the ball was played to him.
I dont agree with the interpretation of the rule for the second goal personally as a defender myself. When a striker is in that position whether he gets the ball or not he affects the defenders mindset and also his positioning and that can create space for the onside player as the defender moves to cover a return pass in the 'next phase' of play. But by the current interpretation of the law he isnt offside.
Thats my two cents.
posted on 26/8/11
"According to the rules, interfering with play means touching the ball which he didn't."
But he attempted to touch the ball.
posted on 26/8/11
Both weren't offside. The first Suarez wasn't in an active position when the pass was made. Miguel then panicked when the ball came at him, Suarez was now onside and Miguel kicked it off his own player. Had he kicked it off Suarez, then he would have been offside. Since Suarez had no interference then he wasn't given as offside.
The second was more clear. A pass was made to Mereiles, Suarez wasn't in an active position and by the time Mereiles passed to Suarez, he was now onside.
Both legitimate goals according to the rules, however I don't agree with these rules. If a player is offside and close to the ball, then he should be deemed offside in my opinion.
posted on 26/8/11
Well poll said they were on side, as if you do not touch the ball, you can't be offside!
posted on 26/8/11
Poll
posted on 26/8/11
I didn't even realise there was any debate over the second one? First one was off, though - IMO. Yeah he didn't touch the ball, but he was actively in play at the time...
posted on 26/8/11
I dont agree with the interpretation of the rule for the second goal personally as a defender myself. When a striker is in that position whether he gets the ball or not he affects the defenders mindset and also his positioning and that can create space for the onside player as the defender moves to cover a return pass in the 'next phase' of play. But by the current interpretation of the law he isnt offside.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would apply this to both goals, as stated on the FIFA website, active play begins when the player touches the ball or if in the next phase the ball comes off the attacker after being hit by the defender. Also I agree with you that this active play law is stupid.
posted on 26/8/11
Both weren't offside. The first Suarez wasn't in an active position when the pass was made. Miguel then panicked when the ball came at him, Suarez was now onside and Miguel kicked it off his own player. Had he kicked it off Suarez, then he would have been offside. Since Suarez had no interference then he wasn't given as offside.
The second was more clear. A pass was made to Mereiles, Suarez wasn't in an active position and by the time Mereiles passed to Suarez, he was now onside.
Both legitimate goals according to the rules, however I don't agree with these rules. If a player is offside and close to the ball, then he should be deemed offside in my opinion.
---------
Oh god, not this again.
posted on 26/8/11
According to the rules, interfering with play means touching the ball which he didn't.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are actually 3 reasons you can give offside.
1. Interfering with play.
2. Interfering with an opponent
3. Gaining an advantage.
For the first goal he was offside for reason 2 - interfering with an opponent.
If Miquel was under no pressure, he would not have had to try and hack it away.
The second goal was not offside as the cross into the box counts as the start of a new phase of play.
posted on 26/8/11
Must admit as a Goon, I was surprised there was any debate for the second goal. Anyone who knows about the application of "phases of play" should know it was onside. The 1st goal though was clearly offside as far as I'm concerned.
posted on 26/8/11
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It seems to me that this active not active business has been devised by someone that has either not played much competitive football, or has not played in defence!! A striker, on or offside is an active presence in the mind of a defender at all times and every movement they make effects the defenders positioning and decision making.
At least they do when I'm playing, but maybe thats because I'm too slow to catch anyone that gets away from me!
posted on 26/8/11
If you can get a clip of when something similar to the second goal has been given offside then I'll pay attention.
This isn't politics, it is football.
posted on 26/8/11
Why has noone used this comparison.
Imagine Reina plays the ball to carragher whilst suarez is offside and carragher then hoofs it up to suarez whilst he's now onside. Would anyone consider that offside? No they wouldn't
IMO it makes no difference where you are on the pitch. It's onside
posted on 26/8/11
comment by TalksRubbish (U3303)
posted 12 minutes ago
There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
It seems to me that this active not active business has been devised by someone that has either not played much competitive football, or has not played in defence!! A striker, on or offside is an active presence in the mind of a defender at all times and every movement they make effects the defenders positioning and decision making.
At least they do when I'm playing, but maybe thats because I'm too slow to catch anyone that gets away from me!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is an absolutely idiotic rule in my opinion. This rule was made to appease the fools who couldn't understand the not interfering with play rule. So they dumbed it down to mean touching the ball or interfering with play.
posted on 26/8/11
with a player*
posted on 26/8/11
comment by iCraft uGraft - Believable Tekkers (U1193)
Sorry but if it is being discussed again then it is obviously still debatable to some people. Just thought I would try to teach a few people this new stupid offside law.
Page 1 of 2