Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth

Kudos said:
That paragraph is being used out of context it's for a foul committed on an 'inactive' offside player.

Law 11 - Offside | IFAB

Offside in football, offside rule football, offside rule introduced
www.theifab.com www.theifab.com

In order for that paragraph to apply Schar needs to be having no impact on play which he clearly is.
Click to expand...

How is it out of context?

"a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence"

It gives the exact context and says it's a foul.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
How is it out of context?

"a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence"

It gives the exact context and says it's a foul.
Click to expand...
See the other thread but basically Schar is in an offside position and involved in "active play" the moment the ball is kicked so there's no argument the foul happened "before the offside offence"
 
SlowDownDerek said:
How is it out of context?

"a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence"

It gives the exact context and says it's a foul.
Click to expand...
Did the foul occur before the offside?
 
Flake said:
Ref Watch this morning on SSN, the penalty was the first thing they reviewed. Dermot Gallagher admitted he didn't understand it so had to ask for clarification from PGMOL before going on the show. All four members of the show agreed it was a nonsense call and then cracked up laughing. Can't imagine them laughing about it if it had happened to one of the big clubs though.
Click to expand...

Indeed, you do have to come back to it’s the little clubs so it doesn’t matter rhetoric. Which is something that to be honest I hate, but struggle to often argue against.
 
I would argue that Schar was influencing or involved in the play - the defenders have to react to his movement and the ball is landing in his vicinity - so it should be offside. That's how I think the law should work, but it doesn't seem as though it is written that way.

That said, Smith was a silly boy.
 
If the ref had simply given offside no one would have batted an eyelid.

The lino flagged, the ref called it, some numpty in a box 200 miles away totally detached from events decided to intervene.

Can you imagine Eddie after the game " Well that's trampled all over rule 11 blah blah blah" - no chance, I doubt like most of us he's ever heard of it.

The truth is every football loving person and player on the planet would have called it offside and moved on. We all accept the shirt pull was a foul but it didn't matter because the No 1 target of that ball was in an offside position and clearly interfering with play, he was the nub of the play, the focus of the cross - the ball was destined for his nut and Smith knew it.
 
red_house said:
If the ref had simply given offside no one would have batted an eyelid.

The lino flagged, the ref called it, some numpty in a box 200 miles away totally detached from events decided to intervene.

Can you imagine Eddie after the game " Well that's trampled all over rule 11 blah blah blah" - no chance, I doubt like most of us he's ever heard of it.

The truth is every football loving person and player on the planet would have called it offside and moved on. We all accept the shirt pull was a foul but it didn't matter because the No 1 target of that ball was in an offside position and clearly interfering with play, he was the nub of the play, the focus of the cross - the ball was destined for his nut and Smith knew it.
Click to expand...

I think the reason it sits so uncomfortably is due to the completely innocuous nature of the foul. If Smith had have booted him people would probably be more accepting of the decision despite the player being offside. Perhaps that's the type of foul the lawmakers had in mind when they put this specific clause in. As it is it seems ludicrous that the player who is being fouled isn't deemed interfering with play as a matter of course.
 
billythekid said:
There were some good points made against the referee’s decision and think Gallagher by the look on his face without saying anything agreed.

What wasn’t mentioned if it was a clear decision, why did it take 12 views to make his mind up, there must have been doubt in the referee’s mind.
Click to expand...
If like Gallagher relayed the only decisions the referee needed to make were, is it a foul and was the ball near the incident you'd be surprised he'd need more than one look at it...
 
So:

If the foul occurred before he challenged for the ball, should it have been a free kick?

But if the foul is deemed to continue into the box, is Schär by now challenging for (in the vicinity of) the ball, and therefore he is offside?

So you can look forward for the foul, but not for the challenging for the ball
 
If you’re not interfering with play then surely you can’t be fouled, the ref clearly didn’t know what to do either as it took so long, I imagine that he was being told, keep watching it until you give a penalty.
It wasn’t clear and obvious either, VAR is shite and needs scrapping
 
Bishop said:
If you’re not interfering with play then surely you can’t be fouled, the ref clearly didn’t know what to do either as it took so long, I imagine that he was being told, keep watching it until you give a penalty.
It wasn’t clear and obvious either, VAR is shite and needs scrapping
Click to expand...

If that were true you could headbutt someone in the box and it wouldn't be a pen as long as the ball wasn't close by.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
If that were true you could headbutt someone in the box and it wouldn't be a pen as long as the ball wasn't close by.
Click to expand...
I think this is where I am a little in disbelief because, Smith as stupid as it was, fouled a player in a manor that is almost “accepted” in dead ball situations. I get head butting a player, slide tackling off the ball, and other stuff like that but a shirt pull? Just makes no sense, especially as it started outside the box. Yes I know if it continues in the box but at some point he is surely then considered offisde ie when the foul occurred.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;