Football

[SuspectUsual]

There lies the issue about the ball going backwards, it has always part of the game if ball goes backwards then can't be offside, been there for many many years but not in the laws of the game, well that is a surprise!

It isn’t in the current laws, and wasn’t when I learned to be a referee a few years ago. I think it’s assumed to be in the laws because when it happens offside is very rarely given, but that’ll be because if the ball is played backwards 99.99% of the time it would be to a teammate who was behind the ball, and therefore not offside. Last night was one of the rare exceptions to this

 

[150249]

I personally think that if VAR can't decide, they should stick with the on field decision.

 

[SuspectUsual]

I personally think that if VAR can't decide, they should stick with the on field decision.

Yes, but not for offside. Offside is a matter of fact, not interpretation

 

[150249]

Yes, but not for offside. Offside is a matter of fact, not interpretation

But if it is a matter of fact, it shouldn't take 4 minutes to decide.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Whilst on the subject of CL matches, whatever has happened to Barcelona over the last couple of years in this competition?

 

[AlterEgo]

Yes, but not for offside. Offside is a matter of fact, not interpretation

No it’s a matter of interpretation too, especially when it comes to whether an opponent had deliberately played the ball.

Last night, the ball was played backwards, would never have reached Kane and he could never have committed an offside offence. That is, until the defender deflected the ball into his path. Bizarrely, the laws say that despite the defender having been the one to deflect the ball into his path and hence divert the ball towards the goal in the first place, Kane is still offside.

Sorry but if it takes four minutes to review something and a laser line - which is made up by the way, they’re dragged on screen by officials to guess where airborne things like the ball are - it’s not a clear and obvious error. For over 100 years Kane’s goal would have counted and nobody would have seen anything wrong with it in the replays (“looks level to me Clive!”) but the VAR enthusiasts have ruined all that now with their anti-art activism.

 

[SuspectUsual]

No it’s a matter of interpretation too, especially when it comes to whether an opponent had deliberately played the ball

Yes, you’re right about that part. I meant the question as to whether a player is in an offside position

Last night, the ball was played backwards

Absolutely irrelevant and not in the laws.

Bizarrely, the laws say that despite the defender having been the one to deflect the ball into his path and hence divert the ball towards the goal in the first place, Kane is still offside

Because Kane gained an advantage by being in an offside position

 

[scotrail158713]

The longer it goes on, the more I think an appeals system would be best way forward for VAR in football.

 

[DarloRich]

Buxton 2 v Darlo 1

two soft goals. made but didn't take chances. Got beat. argh. We have one of the best headers of the ball in our league up front and the manager wont play a bit more direct and put Kaine Felix who is a flying machine off him to run onto the flick on. Why do football people make things harder than they need be?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Buxton 2 v Darlo 1

two soft goals. made but didn't take chances. Got beat. argh. We have one of the best headers of the ball in our league up front and the manager wont play a bit more direct and put Kaine Felix who is a flying machine off him to run onto the flick on. Why do football people make things harder than they need be?

Hyde United lost by the same score away at Buxton in the FA Cup 4th qualifying round. I did have a feeling that it was a bridge too far this time even though they had beaten a team from the same higher division (whose name I shall not mention) at our home ground in the 3rd qualifying round.

 

[AlterEgo]

Absolutely irrelevant and not in the laws.

It isn't relevant to the Laws of the Game but it is perverse that you can play the ball backwards, a defender touch it forwards - even unintentionally, and Kane be offside. What's the defender doing there if it's not to try and touch the ball sometime and affect play?

Kane isn't committing any offence whatsoever until the defender touches the ball. The ball isn't going to him. If that ball misses everyone, goes back across the six yard box to another attacker lurking by the penalty spot and it gets lashed in, nobody complains Kane was gaining "an advantage".

Same with the whole "playing the ball" farce. Also total hogwash. A few years ago, Kane got a penalty at Liverpool despite receiving the ball having been in an offside position. Lovren, the Liverpool defender, had tried to intercept and deliberately play the ball from the through pass to him. Now why was Lovren doing that? Because it was about to run through to Kane, who was in an offside position!

Further to "deliberately attempting to play the ball" is its interpretation, which is also a total joke:

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

• passing the ball to a team-mate; or
• gaining possession of the ball; or
• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

Many offsides are from crosses, where the player receives the ball, offside, despite one or even two attempted clearances on the cross' way through the crowd, by players jumping for headers "inaccurately and unsuccessfully", yet they're always given as offside. What a mess.

Imagine Casemiro's goal for United last weekend. Yes, he was onside, but imagine he was offside when the cross comes in. Before he touches the ball, the ball goes over a defender, who is marking him, attempts to clear and deliberately play the ball, unsuccessfully. Yet he'd be offside. A total chimera of a rule.

Because Kane gained an advantage by being in an offside position

I maintain that Kane was not in an offside position anyway, as I said upthread. He's level. The lines are arbitrary and drawn as a best guess when it comes to airborne objects like the football. They honestly don't know where that football is, laterally, in relation to Kane. Honestly, sack the lines into a bin - poison, poison, poison. As I said, rewind ten years, you look at the replay, you shrug and you say "well he's level!", because, well, that's what it looks like. One player appealed very speculatively for offside, that's it. Nobody else even saw it.

Offside VAR is total nonsense, the offence was created to ensure an artful midfield game, and was never, ever intended to be ruled by imaginary lasers deciding if someone's knee (lol really) was in front of the very front stitching of the ball on still frame on a 60FPS camera. If the response is "well look at the laser lines" I'm simply not interested to hear why this is a good way to decide incredibly marginal micro-infringements.

I hate VAR's implementation and consider it cancerous. It was sold on the basis that clear and obvious errors would be eradicated. Nobody has a problem with that, but the awful creep of it deciding multiple incidents in a game including things which are far from clear and obvious errors is the worst development in football as a spectacle, possibly ever.

In future, sit in sullen silence when a goal goes in while we wait a few minutes for some eggheads in a dark room to draw some lines and they will decide for us, down to the atomic level, whether a goal has been scored.

VAR cheats the spectator out of visceral pleasure when a goal is scored and I would be happy to see it nuked from space. There was nothing wrong with professional football for 100 years.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Now if you’d asked me whether I agreed with you that the offside law is a load of bobbins as currently written and applied, then we’d be in furious agreement.

I remember Spurs being hard done to a few years ago against Arsenal - ball into the box, defender knows there’s an attacker goal side of him so tries to clear the ball, it skimmed his head and went in for an own goal. The attacker was offside, and it was his presence that caused the defender to do what he did, yet the law allows for the goal to stand.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Now if you’d asked me whether I agreed with you that the offside law is a load of bobbins as currently written and applied, then we’d be in furious agreement.

I remember Spurs being hard done to a few years ago against Arsenal - ball into the box, defender knows there’s an attacker goal side of him so tries to clear the ball, it skimmed his head and went in for an own goal. The attacker was offside, and it was his presence that caused the defender to do what he did, yet the law allows for the goal to stand.

By the sounds of it that's a fair decision. If the defender had left it and the attacker attempted to play the ball, the flag goes up for offside. He should have got a shout of "leave it!" from his 'keeper.

 

[SuspectUsual]

By the sounds of it that's a fair decision. If the defender had left it and the attacker attempted to play the ball, the flag goes up for offside. He should have got a shout of "leave it!" from his 'keeper.

Its fair in the sense that the law was applied properly, but relying on a goalkeeper who is stood side on to the offside line is ambitious! The point is that the attacker, in an offside position, influenced play. Therefore he's interfering, so when I run FIFA that'll be offside.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Its fair in the sense that the law was applied properly, but relying on a goalkeeper who is stood side on to the offside line is ambitious! The point is that the attacker, in an offside position, influenced play. Therefore he's interfering, so when I run FIFA that'll be offside.

But he ceases to be offside the moment the defender touches it. The defender, rather than thinking "there's an opponent there, better get something on this" should have thought "he's offside, let it run".

That is of course assuming the flag would actually go up as it should. If it didn't, that's a "clear and obvious" mistake that VAR should be there to correct.

 

[DarloRich]

Hyde United lost by the same score away at Buxton in the FA Cup 4th qualifying round. I did have a feeling that it was a bridge too far this time even though they had beaten a team from the same higher division (whose name I shall not mention) at our home ground in the 3rd qualifying round.

i would say they are rugged and workman like and hard to breakdown. Doesn't help when you gift them 2 goals!

 

[AlterEgo]

By the sounds of it that's a fair decision. If the defender had left it and the attacker attempted to play the ball, the flag goes up for offside. He should have got a shout of "leave it!" from his 'keeper.

But no player knows for sure if someone else is offside, especially in the Laser Era of football. In any case, you can't shout "mine!" or "leave it" on the pitch without risking being brought up for unsportsmanlike conduct. Calls must always be made with a clear context as to who is shouting at whom.

 

[150249]

We should all go on Sky or BT

Got my popcorn out

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Oct 2022 ==

Whilst on the subject of CL matches, whatever has happened to Barcelona over the last couple of years in this competition?

Some insane games in group H this week

 

[REVUpminster]

I've always felt offside should only apply to balls played from one half to the other. This would enable defenders to move forward leaving goal hangers offside to a long ball. Once the ball is taken into an opponent's half off side ceases and defenders have to defend properly and not try to play forwards offside.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how many years have now elapsed with football supporters not fully comprehending the Laws of the Game and labouring under a misapprehension?

 

[SuspectUsual]

I wonder how many years have now elapsed with football supporters not fully comprehending the Laws of the Game and labouring under a misapprehension?

I spent about 10 years reffing age group games from U7 to U15 for the club my kids played for. I could write a book about the absolute nonsense I've had shouted at me by (in descending order) parents, managers and players.

And I've heard plenty sat in the stands at "proper" football too

 

[Drogba11CFC]

Whilst on the subject of CL matches, whatever has happened to Barcelona over the last couple of years in this competition?

Great, isn't it?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I wonder how many years have now elapsed with football supporters not fully comprehending the Laws of the Game and labouring under a misapprehension?

A few years ago, I saw an assistant referee raise his flag for an offside in the first phase of play following a throw-in... so it isn't just supporters.

Luckily the referee knew it was an error and ignored the flag. Presumably he also corrected his assistant via their communication system, and hopefully spent the whole journey home taking the mick!

 

[Cletus]

The current rule for throw-in’s is confusing many.

Not so noticeable at big grounds, but most games I hear the shout of “foul throw” when someone sees the throwers feet over line. I think the rule is now that feet just have to be touching the, er touchline?

 

[SuspectUsual]

The current rule for throw-in’s is confusing many.

Not so noticeable at big grounds, but most games I hear the shout of “foul throw” when someone sees the throwers feet over line. I think the rule is now that feet just have to be touching the, er touchline?

Yes. Part of each foot on or behind the line. But there are a lot of foul throws not given, generally because the ref and lino are watching where the ball is going, not the thrower

 

[AlterEgo]

I've always felt offside should only apply to balls played from one half to the other. This would enable defenders to move forward leaving goal hangers offside to a long ball. Once the ball is taken into an opponent's half off side ceases and defenders have to defend properly and not try to play forwards offside.

That would result in anti-football, where for any free kick in the opponent's half, you simply put five players around the goalkeeper and hoof it in. Offside exists to conjure an envelope of attractive and intelligent play and discourages things like this, which would be horrible to watch.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2022 ==

The current rule for throw-in’s is confusing many.

Not so noticeable at big grounds, but most games I hear the shout of “foul throw” when someone sees the throwers feet over line. I think the rule is now that feet just have to be touching the, er touchline?

Much more common is a throw released from in front of the head. I see some almost every single game in League One.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Oct 2022 ==

I wonder how many years have now elapsed with football supporters not fully comprehending the Laws of the Game and labouring under a misapprehension?

I stood next to a guy for three years at games who refused to believe:

a) You can't be offside from a goal kick, and
b) Free kicks awarded in your own penalty area can actually be taken from anywhere in the penalty area and don't have to be where the offence was committed. In fact, lots of goalkeepers don't seem to know that one as it is a gold mine for time wasting, that.

 

[SuspectUsual]

b) Free kicks awarded in your own penalty area can actually be taken from anywhere in the penalty area and don't have to be where the offence was committed. In fact, lots of goalkeepers don't seem to know that one as it is a gold mine for time wasting, that.

That isn’t true. A free kick to the defending team in its goal area (aka the six yard box) can be taken anywhere inside it (same as a goal kick can). In the penalty area it’s supposed to be where the offence took place, but it’s rarely rigorously enforced as the attacking threat is relatively low

 

[adrock1976]

It isn't relevant to the Laws of the Game but it is perverse that you can play the ball backwards, a defender touch it forwards - even unintentionally, and Kane be offside. What's the defender doing there if it's not to try and touch the ball sometime and affect play?

Kane isn't committing any offence whatsoever until the defender touches the ball. The ball isn't going to him. If that ball misses everyone, goes back across the six yard box to another attacker lurking by the penalty spot and it gets lashed in, nobody complains Kane was gaining "an advantage".

Same with the whole "playing the ball" farce. Also total hogwash. A few years ago, Kane got a penalty at Liverpool despite receiving the ball having been in an offside position. Lovren, the Liverpool defender, had tried to intercept and deliberately play the ball from the through pass to him. Now why was Lovren doing that? Because it was about to run through to Kane, who was in an offside position!

Further to "deliberately attempting to play the ball" is its interpretation, which is also a total joke:

‘Deliberate play’ is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of:

• passing the ball to a team-mate; or
• gaining possession of the ball; or
• clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it).

If the pass, attempt to gain possession or clearance by the player in control of the ball is inaccurate or unsuccessful, this does not negate the fact that the player ‘deliberately played’ the ball.

Many offsides are from crosses, where the player receives the ball, offside, despite one or even two attempted clearances on the cross' way through the crowd, by players jumping for headers "inaccurately and unsuccessfully", yet they're always given as offside. What a mess.

Imagine Casemiro's goal for United last weekend. Yes, he was onside, but imagine he was offside when the cross comes in. Before he touches the ball, the ball goes over a defender, who is marking him, attempts to clear and deliberately play the ball, unsuccessfully. Yet he'd be offside. A total chimera of a rule.


I maintain that Kane was not in an offside position anyway, as I said upthread. He's level. The lines are arbitrary and drawn as a best guess when it comes to airborne objects like the football. They honestly don't know where that football is, laterally, in relation to Kane. Honestly, sack the lines into a bin - poison, poison, poison. As I said, rewind ten years, you look at the replay, you shrug and you say "well he's level!", because, well, that's what it looks like. One player appealed very speculatively for offside, that's it. Nobody else even saw it.

Offside VAR is total nonsense, the offence was created to ensure an artful midfield game, and was never, ever intended to be ruled by imaginary lasers deciding if someone's knee (lol really) was in front of the very front stitching of the ball on still frame on a 60FPS camera. If the response is "well look at the laser lines" I'm simply not interested to hear why this is a good way to decide incredibly marginal micro-infringements.

I hate VAR's implementation and consider it cancerous. It was sold on the basis that clear and obvious errors would be eradicated. Nobody has a problem with that, but the awful creep of it deciding multiple incidents in a game including things which are far from clear and obvious errors is the worst development in football as a spectacle, possibly ever.

In future, sit in sullen silence when a goal goes in while we wait a few minutes for some eggheads in a dark room to draw some lines and they will decide for us, down to the atomic level, whether a goal has been scored.

VAR cheats the spectator out of visceral pleasure when a goal is scored and I would be happy to see it nuked from space. There was nothing wrong with professional football for 100 years.

Regarding your thoughts about VAR, it has been introduced in Scotland over the last week or so.

If VAR is used right, it should also help eliminate accusations from some fans that some of the refs are members of the Freemasons whenever a decision goes against their side.

 

[Cloud Strife]

I spent about 10 years reffing age group games from U7 to U15 for the club my kids played for. I could write a book about the absolute nonsense I've had shouted at me by (in descending order) parents, managers and players.

A friend of mine sent off a player in a U14 schoolboys game in some local cup final. The parents went absolutely ballistic, as it was their star striker that had been dismissed. It was a straight red: he'd elbowed another place in the face, probably assuming that there's no way that the ref would send him off in the first few minutes.

He called a halt to the game, took the two coaches and two captains aside and told them that they had 15 minutes to get the crowd (i.e. parents) under control or the game would be abandoned. The coaches and captains did their best, but the sheer rage on the part of some parents was beyond visceral. As soon as the 15 minutes were up, he blew the whistle, abandoned the game and made it clear that Team A would be held responsible for the abandonment of the game.

I still remember him telling me that he expected (and knew how to deal with) parents and coaches, but being told a torrent of swear words by a 7 year old really stuck with him. The 7 year old actually spat at him in the end, which is just unbelievable.

Football really needs to introduce a Rugby-style rule that only captains can approach or speak to the ref, unless you're spoken to first.

 

[oxfordray1]

The proposed merger of Bury AFC (the fans with a team but no ground) and Bury FC (the fans with the ground but no team) will not go ahead. Bury AFC voted overwhelmingly to merge and Bury FC voted in favour but not by the required majority.

Seems crazy to me as a local-ish resident (but not a fan). I don't think the town of Bury can support two teams above (say) step 3 or 4 of the non league system.

It will be interesting to see what happens next. Presumably Bury FC will apply to the FA to be placed in a league and Bury AFC will continue aiming to rise through the non league system (buoyed by their FA cup run).