It's easy. The first goal was offside the second wasn't. It doesn't matter though, that was a week ago and they were always going to win after that point.
comment by Nasri's Agent - Mr Miyaichi > Mr Miyagi (U6563)
posted 12 minutes ago
It's easy. The first goal was offside the second wasn't. It doesn't matter though, that was a week ago and they were always going to win after that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a little confused. If the rules say it's not offside, then how is it, in your opinion, offside?
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But you were wrong in the first place. It was offside...
Iconic white sleeves (U8973)
There's actually been some clarification since the laws that you have quoted were written.
The interefering law now only applies if you touch the ball or impede and opponent / block their view.
Which is utterly ridiculous, but true.
I agree with David Fairclough - the first goal was not offside as further replays indicate the Arsenal defenders foot was over the line as much as Suarez's but this is ignored due to the fact that another Liverpool player is standing infront of the defender and it hinders our view.
comment by iCraft uGraft - Believable Tekkers (U1193)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But you were wrong in the first place. It was offside...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I'll ask you the same question. If according to the rules it isn't offside, then how, in your opinion, is it offside?
Also I'll add if anybody is wrong then it's FIFA. I didn't make the rules. Also as I've said before, I don't agree with this rule.
Then I'll ask you the same question. If according to the rules it isn't offside, then how, in your opinion, is it offside?
-------------
It's not in my opinion. You've already had this argument in the other thread, so there is no point going over it again.
comment by iCraft uGraft - Believable Tekkers (U1193)
posted 5 minutes ago
Then I'll ask you the same question. If according to the rules it isn't offside, then how, in your opinion, is it offside?
-------------
It's not in my opinion. You've already had this argument in the other thread, so there is no point going over it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is up to you. However as I've said it is in the rulebook, so I thought you found some sort of loophole or something. I guess not.
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
Well that is up to you. However as I've said it is in the rulebook, so I thought you found some sort of loophole or something. I guess not.
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
-------
Exactly... case closed - good work
As ever, the rulebook is an ass.
If a player isn't looking at the ball, the ball doesn't hit him and he's not impeding someone else, then he shouldn't be on the pitch, he should be in the stands, like the other spectators.
If you are on the pitch and are wearing a football shirt (and aren't a United-loving dikk trying to get in a team photo next to Dwight Yorke), then you are interfering with play IMO.
However, FIFA and UEFA take a different view on the matter. According to their rules, Suarez wasn't offside, even if everyone would logically assume he's actually trying to get to the ball and influence play. As for the second goal, again, because of the way the rules are read, not offside either.
The trouble is that you are in the realms of trying to decide WHEN a player goes from inactive to active, as activity seem sto be a key point in the law...
Everyone on the pitch is interfering in the match as they are playing but we have to centralise the incident - i.e the area effected and the relevevant players. That is the discretion of the ref and his assistants.
comment by StJohn_Red_Legend (U3300)
posted 4 minutes ago
As ever, the rulebook is an ass.
If a player isn't looking at the ball, the ball doesn't hit him and he's not impeding someone else, then he shouldn't be on the pitch, he should be in the stands, like the other spectators.
If you are on the pitch and are wearing a football shirt (and aren't a United-loving dikk trying to get in a team photo next to Dwight Yorke), then you are interfering with play IMO.
However, FIFA and UEFA take a different view on the matter. According to their rules, Suarez wasn't offside, even if everyone would logically assume he's actually trying to get to the ball and influence play. As for the second goal, again, because of the way the rules are read, not offside either.
The trouble is that you are in the realms of trying to decide WHEN a player goes from inactive to active, as activity seem sto be a key point in the law...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with that. The rule is a stupid rule. However referees and their assistants have to judge a decision using those rules, however stupid they may be.
It is extremely hard to take when you are on the wrong side of it and you do feel a sense of feeling sorry for the opposition when get the advantage of it. For me, that means the rule is wrong.
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But according to the rulebook, the first goal was offside.
Have you read it? I have.
Page 108 example 9.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
As for the second goal, again, because of the way the rules are read, not offside either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the rulebook is pretty explicit in saying that in situations like the second goal it is not offside
Page 109 example 12
Really it would help if you actually read the rulebook.
comment by Iconic white sleeves (U8973)
posted 48 seconds ago
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But according to the rulebook, the first goal was offside.
Have you read it? I have.
Page 108 example 9.
The rulebook says that you have to be
a) Touching the ball after it is passed by team-mate - or rebounds off post, crossbar or opponent
or
b)Preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent's line of vision or distracting him/her
This rule has been in play for many years now and still people can't understand it.
For me that means the rule is wrong but it is the laws that every team has to abide by.
Unfortunately it was us that gained an advantage from this silly rule.
I do believe that we will see another change within the next few years.
Neither goal was offside.
The rules clearly states that the player has to touch the ball to be in an offside position or obstuct the opposing player. Whilst Suarez was marginally offside when the ball was played he didn't touch the ball, or obstruct the opposing player. Miquel got to the ball first, it hit Ramsay and went in. Suarez didn't touch it so he can not be offside.
The rules according to FIFA and IFAB are as follows
Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goal-post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing the ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.
I donlt think anyone can argue it. Suarez wasn't offside.
In the second, he was offside in the first phase ofplay, but the ball isn;t played to him. It goes to Meireles who was clearly onside. When he passes it to Suarez, he was on side. Again a perfectly legitimate goal.
Don't see how any Arsenal fan can complain as both goals were within the FIFA rules. Or is there now a special rule for when you play against Arsenal?
comment by FatJanMolby (U4297)
The rules don't seem to count for much for some reason on here. People are stuck in the 1990's with regards to the offside law. Even after explaining it and showing the rule, taken from the FIFA website, people still disagree. I know opinions are debatable but facts are not.
This rule has been in play for many years now and still people can't understand it.
For me that means the rule is wrong but it is the laws that every team has to abide by.
Unfortunately it was us that gained an advantage from this silly rule.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on, are you now saying you think it was offside?
b)Preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent's line of vision or distracting him/her
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually says "or making a gesture or movement which distracts him/her"
Can anybody possibly claim that Miquel was in no way influenced by the pressure from Suarez?
I donlt think anyone can argue it. Suarez wasn't offside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you just quoted the laws where it says "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent."
How can you say that Suarez did in no way influence Miquel's actions?
If Suarez was not there, the natural thing to do is to let the ball go out of play surely?
That would be at the discretion of the officials.
Actually, the interpetation of the law is such that a player has to physically effect an opponent i.e. block vision, block movement.
The mere suggestion that he may have affected the defender is not enough to qualify as offside.
It's a ridiculous development, but it is the unfortunate reality.
First goal - maybe offside
Second goal - certainly not.
"deceives or distracts an opponent."
___________
An important part of the clause. How did Suarez decieve or distract the Arsenal defence? He didn't. He made a normal run that any striker would make. Had Miquel stood still and not chased the ball, and Suarez got there, he would have been called offside. Miquel touched it so it wasn't offside. There is no argument. According to the rules it was a legitimate goal.
Sign in if you want to comment
Were goals against Arsenal offside?
Page 2 of 2
posted on 26/8/11
It's easy. The first goal was offside the second wasn't. It doesn't matter though, that was a week ago and they were always going to win after that point.
posted on 26/8/11
comment by Nasri's Agent - Mr Miyaichi > Mr Miyagi (U6563)
posted 12 minutes ago
It's easy. The first goal was offside the second wasn't. It doesn't matter though, that was a week ago and they were always going to win after that point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a little confused. If the rules say it's not offside, then how is it, in your opinion, offside?
posted on 26/8/11
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But you were wrong in the first place. It was offside...
posted on 26/8/11
Iconic white sleeves (U8973)
There's actually been some clarification since the laws that you have quoted were written.
The interefering law now only applies if you touch the ball or impede and opponent / block their view.
Which is utterly ridiculous, but true.
posted on 26/8/11
I agree with David Fairclough - the first goal was not offside as further replays indicate the Arsenal defenders foot was over the line as much as Suarez's but this is ignored due to the fact that another Liverpool player is standing infront of the defender and it hinders our view.
posted on 26/8/11
comment by iCraft uGraft - Believable Tekkers (U1193)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
But you were wrong in the first place. It was offside...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I'll ask you the same question. If according to the rules it isn't offside, then how, in your opinion, is it offside?
posted on 26/8/11
Also I'll add if anybody is wrong then it's FIFA. I didn't make the rules. Also as I've said before, I don't agree with this rule.
posted on 26/8/11
Then I'll ask you the same question. If according to the rules it isn't offside, then how, in your opinion, is it offside?
-------------
It's not in my opinion. You've already had this argument in the other thread, so there is no point going over it again.
posted on 26/8/11
comment by iCraft uGraft - Believable Tekkers (U1193)
posted 5 minutes ago
Then I'll ask you the same question. If according to the rules it isn't offside, then how, in your opinion, is it offside?
-------------
It's not in my opinion. You've already had this argument in the other thread, so there is no point going over it again.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well that is up to you. However as I've said it is in the rulebook, so I thought you found some sort of loophole or something. I guess not.
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
posted on 26/8/11
Well that is up to you. However as I've said it is in the rulebook, so I thought you found some sort of loophole or something. I guess not.
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
-------
Exactly... case closed - good work
posted on 26/8/11
As ever, the rulebook is an ass.
If a player isn't looking at the ball, the ball doesn't hit him and he's not impeding someone else, then he shouldn't be on the pitch, he should be in the stands, like the other spectators.
If you are on the pitch and are wearing a football shirt (and aren't a United-loving dikk trying to get in a team photo next to Dwight Yorke), then you are interfering with play IMO.
However, FIFA and UEFA take a different view on the matter. According to their rules, Suarez wasn't offside, even if everyone would logically assume he's actually trying to get to the ball and influence play. As for the second goal, again, because of the way the rules are read, not offside either.
The trouble is that you are in the realms of trying to decide WHEN a player goes from inactive to active, as activity seem sto be a key point in the law...
posted on 26/8/11
Everyone on the pitch is interfering in the match as they are playing but we have to centralise the incident - i.e the area effected and the relevevant players. That is the discretion of the ref and his assistants.
posted on 26/8/11
comment by StJohn_Red_Legend (U3300)
posted 4 minutes ago
As ever, the rulebook is an ass.
If a player isn't looking at the ball, the ball doesn't hit him and he's not impeding someone else, then he shouldn't be on the pitch, he should be in the stands, like the other spectators.
If you are on the pitch and are wearing a football shirt (and aren't a United-loving dikk trying to get in a team photo next to Dwight Yorke), then you are interfering with play IMO.
However, FIFA and UEFA take a different view on the matter. According to their rules, Suarez wasn't offside, even if everyone would logically assume he's actually trying to get to the ball and influence play. As for the second goal, again, because of the way the rules are read, not offside either.
The trouble is that you are in the realms of trying to decide WHEN a player goes from inactive to active, as activity seem sto be a key point in the law...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I completely agree with that. The rule is a stupid rule. However referees and their assistants have to judge a decision using those rules, however stupid they may be.
It is extremely hard to take when you are on the wrong side of it and you do feel a sense of feeling sorry for the opposition when get the advantage of it. For me, that means the rule is wrong.
posted on 26/8/11
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But according to the rulebook, the first goal was offside.
Have you read it? I have.
Page 108 example 9.
posted on 26/8/11
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 26/8/11
As for the second goal, again, because of the way the rules are read, not offside either.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the rulebook is pretty explicit in saying that in situations like the second goal it is not offside
Page 109 example 12
Really it would help if you actually read the rulebook.
posted on 26/8/11
comment by Iconic white sleeves (U8973)
posted 48 seconds ago
So I will conclude that since nobody has any opposition to the rulebook, then both goals were onside. I'm glad we've cleared this up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But according to the rulebook, the first goal was offside.
Have you read it? I have.
Page 108 example 9.
The rulebook says that you have to be
a) Touching the ball after it is passed by team-mate - or rebounds off post, crossbar or opponent
or
b)Preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent's line of vision or distracting him/her
This rule has been in play for many years now and still people can't understand it.
For me that means the rule is wrong but it is the laws that every team has to abide by.
Unfortunately it was us that gained an advantage from this silly rule.
I do believe that we will see another change within the next few years.
posted on 26/8/11
Neither goal was offside.
The rules clearly states that the player has to touch the ball to be in an offside position or obstuct the opposing player. Whilst Suarez was marginally offside when the ball was played he didn't touch the ball, or obstruct the opposing player. Miquel got to the ball first, it hit Ramsay and went in. Suarez didn't touch it so he can not be offside.
The rules according to FIFA and IFAB are as follows
Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.
Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goal-post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing the ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.
I donlt think anyone can argue it. Suarez wasn't offside.
In the second, he was offside in the first phase ofplay, but the ball isn;t played to him. It goes to Meireles who was clearly onside. When he passes it to Suarez, he was on side. Again a perfectly legitimate goal.
Don't see how any Arsenal fan can complain as both goals were within the FIFA rules. Or is there now a special rule for when you play against Arsenal?
posted on 26/8/11
comment by FatJanMolby (U4297)
The rules don't seem to count for much for some reason on here. People are stuck in the 1990's with regards to the offside law. Even after explaining it and showing the rule, taken from the FIFA website, people still disagree. I know opinions are debatable but facts are not.
posted on 26/8/11
This rule has been in play for many years now and still people can't understand it.
For me that means the rule is wrong but it is the laws that every team has to abide by.
Unfortunately it was us that gained an advantage from this silly rule.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hang on, are you now saying you think it was offside?
b)Preventing an opponent from being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent's line of vision or distracting him/her
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It actually says "or making a gesture or movement which distracts him/her"
Can anybody possibly claim that Miquel was in no way influenced by the pressure from Suarez?
posted on 26/8/11
I donlt think anyone can argue it. Suarez wasn't offside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you just quoted the laws where it says "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent."
How can you say that Suarez did in no way influence Miquel's actions?
If Suarez was not there, the natural thing to do is to let the ball go out of play surely?
posted on 26/8/11
That would be at the discretion of the officials.
posted on 26/8/11
Actually, the interpetation of the law is such that a player has to physically effect an opponent i.e. block vision, block movement.
The mere suggestion that he may have affected the defender is not enough to qualify as offside.
It's a ridiculous development, but it is the unfortunate reality.
posted on 26/8/11
First goal - maybe offside
Second goal - certainly not.
posted on 26/8/11
"deceives or distracts an opponent."
___________
An important part of the clause. How did Suarez decieve or distract the Arsenal defence? He didn't. He made a normal run that any striker would make. Had Miquel stood still and not chased the ball, and Suarez got there, he would have been called offside. Miquel touched it so it wasn't offside. There is no argument. According to the rules it was a legitimate goal.
Page 2 of 2