Carabao cup final

R

R1chardA

New Signing
Is it just me or was the decision to give the VVD goal as offside almost exactly opposite to the logic used to award a penalty against us against Newcastle? Someone in an offside position doesn't get close to the ball but is given offside.

(I did say I don't think I'll ever get over that decision)
 
Not the same scenario. There was no foul on an offside attacking player so that section of the law wasn't applied.

The offside player blocked the run of the defender to track VVD - stopping the opponent from being able to play the ball which you aren't allowed to do from an offside position.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Not the same scenario. There was no foul on an offside attacking player so that section of the law wasn't applied.

The offside player blocked the run of the defender to track VVD - stopping the opponent from being able to play the ball which you aren't allowed to do from an offside position.
Click to expand...
I know you're sycophantic towards referees, but he was in an offside position, but he didn't commit an offside offence right?
That's the argument used to justify the penalty against us.

I'll let you explain exactly what the offence he was committing, with reference to the rules as stated in the Newcastle thread.
 
R1chardA said:
I know you're sycophantic towards referees, but he was in an offside position, but he didn't commit an offside offence right?
That's the argument used to justify the penalty against us.

I'll let you explain exactly what the offence he was committing, with reference to the rules as stated in the Newcastle thread.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not sycophantic towards referees but I do think criticism should be fair.

The Liverpool player (Endo?) did commit an offside offence because he deliberately blocked the defender who was tracking VVD. It doesn't even need to be a foul he just has to be:
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
There was also no foul on an attacking player who was in an offside position so that part of the law wasn't relevant.
 
Heaven forbid someone tries to discuss football on this site. Perhaps I should have asked him where he lives and threaten to go round there and punch him.
 
So Endo did this -
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball
Click to expand...
But Schar didn't?

That's not open to interpretation at all is it?
I mean it's totally clear to me that being in an area where the ball is going you are (or possibly you're not depending on which side of the fence you want to be) impacting on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
 
R1chardA said:
So Endo did this -

But Schar didn't?

That's not open to interpretation at all is it?
I mean it's totally clear to me that being in an area where the ball is going you are (or possibly you're not depending on which side of the fence you want to be) impacting on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
Click to expand...

Schar was fouled before the ball got there so the law relating to that scenario applies. Endo wasn't fouled so it's just a regular offside decision - did he make an obvious action to prevent an opponent from being able to play the ball? Yes he was blocking the defensive run therefore he's commited an offside offence.
 
Last edited:
In a binary, black or white text way, the Liverpool player is offside, just as the Newcastle player wasn’t.

Common sense and intention would say both are offside, but common sense long went out the window.
 
DJ said:
In a binary, black or white text way, the Liverpool player is offside, just as the Newcastle player wasn’t.

Common sense and intention would say both are offside, but common sense long went out the window.
Click to expand...

I think that they should tweak the law to say that you're automatically interfering with play if you're offside when fouled in the box. Mind you there could be some quite negative unintended consequences of that.

The Liverpool one yesterday was a clear tactic by them, I don't know how they thought they'd get away with that tbh. That said Kluivert started in a massively offside position on Saturday when Neto was pumping free kicks into the box. I'm not sure if the purpose was to block any defensive runs or just to receive a second phase knock-down type ball.
 
I didn't even realise it had been played...just saw it on the News at 6....that's the appeal of the Mickey Mouse Cup I guess !
I'm not sure we need a League Cup when we've got the FA Cup which is way more interesting.
 
Interestingly the same decision was given in the west ham game. West Ham player offside when the free kick was taken and then blocked the defensive runner. Officials are clearly looking out for this tactic so you'd think people will stop trying it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;