MOTD

JohnHold said:
You've left out "challenging for the ball" for some reason - that is the closest bit of the rule. Clearly he is challenging for the ball as soon as he makes a run for it.
Click to expand...
It requires a LOT of ignoring the rules to come to his conclusion.
 
JohnHold said:
You've left out "challenging for the ball" for some reason - that is the closest bit of the rule. Clearly he is challenging for the ball as soon as he makes a run for it.
Click to expand...

That's in the clause...

"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"

If just making a run is, by definition, "challenging for the ball" then what possible scenario do you think this clause refers to exactly? Why has it been included?

It clearly doesn't mean that just making a run is automatically "challenging for the ball" for a couple of reasons...

1. The whole clause would be redundant;
2. The clause clearly distinguishes between moving towards the ball and challenging for the ball.
 
How about this? Smith thinks he has lost his man, or let him go…not knowing he is offside and so pulls him back. If Smith had known he was offside maybe he wouldn’t have pulled the shirt. Therefore he was effecting play as he made smith think he was in a legal position
 
SlowDownDerek said:
That's in the clause...

"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"

If just making a run is, by definition, "challenging for the ball" then what possible scenario do you think this clause refers to exactly? Why has it been included?

It clearly doesn't mean that just making a run is automatically "challenging for the ball" for a couple of reasons...

1. The whole clause would be redundant;
2. The clause clearly distinguishes between moving towards the ball and challenging for the ball.
Click to expand...
Maybe it is for those instances where a player is offisde, tries to get back on side and is fouled.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
That's in the clause...

"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"

If just making a run is, by definition, "challenging for the ball" then what possible scenario do you think this clause refers to exactly? Why has it been included?

It clearly doesn't mean that just making a run is automatically "challenging for the ball" for a couple of reasons...

1. The whole clause would be redundant;
2. The clause clearly distinguishes between moving towards the ball and challenging for the ball.
Click to expand...
Strange that you would have left it out of the 4 reasons though.

But it is a good question - when does moving towards the ball become challenging for the ball (which is in turn different from (and less than) making an attempt to play the ball)?

And if we cannot look forward to that, was he still outside the box, and it was therefore a free kick?
 
USCherry said:
Maybe it is for those instances where a player is offisde, tries to get back on side and is fouled.
Click to expand...
...or where they aren't interfering with play but are fouled before they are given the chance to do so. An extreme example would be a ball running down the centre and an offside winger cutting in but getting bowled over by a retreating defender.

It's a crap rule but I suppose it's to resolve a situation where defenders could foul offside players to make them 'active'.
 
Kudos said:
...or where they aren't interfering with play but are fouled before they are given the chance to do so. An extreme example would be a ball running down the centre and an offside winger cutting in but getting bowled over by a retreating defender.

It's a crap rule but I suppose it's to resolve a situation where defenders could foul offside players to make them 'active'.
Click to expand...
Yes I was going to try and articulate the same thing about the winger cutting in and getting fouled.
 
JohnHold said:
Strange that you would have left it out of the 4 reasons though.

But it is a good question - when does moving towards the ball become challenging for the ball (which is in turn different from (and less than) making an attempt to play the ball)?

And if we cannot look forward to that, was he still outside the box, and it was therefore a free kick?
Click to expand...

There was no reason to leave it out, I'm not trying to cherry pick any rules. They are all there for everyone to see.

There's no definition from what I can see about the precise difference between moving towards the ball and challenging for the ball but I don't actually think it matters here due to the clarification - they are clearly not the same thing and the lawmakers want the foul to take precedence over offsides on these occasions. I think that is wrong but that was clearly their intention.
 
Kudos said:
...or where they aren't interfering with play but are fouled before they are given the chance to do so. An extreme example would be a ball running down the centre and an offside winger cutting in but getting bowled over by a retreating defender.

It's a crap rule but I suppose it's to resolve a situation where defenders could foul offside players to make them 'active'.
Click to expand...

But it clearly states that the rule is about an offside player who is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball - they aren't interfering yet but they will be. Exactly the scenario on Saturday. Your example is the same thing just not in the box.
 
Is it an offense to push someone offside if he not receiving the ball as it hasn't reached him yet ? When the ball get to him he would be seen as "in play" and flagged offside ?
 
It's getting sh!tter & sh!tter. A quote from last night "Bournemouth are pushing for what will be a famous win" - "famous win" against bottom of the league Sheffield Utd at home; I don't think they are patronising, I think they full on take the p!ss sometimes.
Before they show us, we have to endure the weekly G.O.N love-in with Lineker, "I spoke to Gary O'Neil after the match and here's what he had to say.....". G.O.N has done a brilliant job with Wolves this season and deserves a lot of praise, but Lineker being his personal bidet is not something I want to watch every Saturday night.
 
Allen said:
It's getting sh!tter & sh!tter. A quote from last night "Bournemouth are pushing for what will be a famous win" - "famous win" against bottom of the league Sheffield Utd at home; I don't think they are patronising, I think they full on take the p!ss sometimes.
Before they show us, we have to endure the weekly G.O.N love-in with Lineker, "I spoke to Gary O'Neil after the match and here's what he had to say.....". G.O.N has done a brilliant job with Wolves this season and deserves a lot of praise, but Lineker being his personal bidet is not something I want to watch every Saturday night.
Click to expand...
Haven't seen it but if we had come back and won 3-2 it would have been a famous win. Regardless of the opposition.
 
Allen said:
It's getting sh!tter & sh!tter. A quote from last night "Bournemouth are pushing for what will be a famous win" - "famous win" against bottom of the league Sheffield Utd at home; I don't think they are patronising, I think they full on take the p!ss sometimes.
Before they show us, we have to endure the weekly G.O.N love-in with Lineker, "I spoke to Gary O'Neil after the match and here's what he had to say.....". G.O.N has done a brilliant job with Wolves this season and deserves a lot of praise, but Lineker being his personal bidet is not something I want to watch every Saturday night.
Click to expand...
Last night they couldn't even be bothered to discuss the disallowed goal, one of the most marginal and pathetic handballs ever given. I noticed the commentator views too, one of them was something like "what a league the PL is, to throw up a game like this between 2 clubs like these" WTF does he think we are, yes I know tinpot little Bournemouth.
And of course if it was such a good game why was it on last ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;