Newcastle United v AFC Bournemouth

redharry said:
You could easily argue that running into the penalty area intending to head a cross that is coming towards you is challenging for the ball. At what point is movement towards the ball deemed to be a challenge? A yard away? 5 yards ? 10 yards? The so called offence of being offside only when challenging is not black or white it is just an interpretation by whoever is on VAR duty at the time.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can argue that because the rule clearly distinguishes moving towards the ball from Challenging for the ball.

"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"
 
Kudos said:
"for a player in an offside position to commit an offense they need to challenge for the ball or play the ball"
- Howard Webb
Click to expand...

Howard Webb is clearly talking about the offence in question, he's clearly not talking about the entirety of every aspect of the offside law in that one sentence is he.

The rules are there for all to see...

Offside offence...

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
 
redharry said:
You could easily argue that running into the penalty area intending to head a cross that is coming towards you is challenging for the ball. At what point is movement towards the ball deemed to be a challenge? A yard away? 5 yards ? 10 yards? The so called offence of being offside only when challenging is not black or white it is just an interpretation by whoever is on VAR duty at the time.
Click to expand...

That'll be a var decision sometime, at what point is a player challenging for the ball. We now know that running towards a cross that you would connect with in 3 seconds isn't challenging for the ball.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
I don't think you can argue that because the rule clearly distinguishes moving towards the ball from Challenging for the ball.

"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"
Click to expand...
So should a player only be deemed offside if they actually play the ball ? It is a complete mess and just allows open interpretation of exactly when a player is making a challenge for the ball. As I say 1 yard from the ball, 2 yards ?
 
Why didn’t Smith just punch him in the face? After all there is no risk of a penalty being awarded in that scenario.
 
It now appears there is a new law that states a player can only be offside (or onside)depending on where and when the ball is kicked forward.More bludy subjectivemous to confuse all involved even more.
 
redharry said:
So should a player only be deemed offside if they actually play the ball ? It is a complete mess and just allows open interpretation of exactly when a player is making a challenge for the ball. As I say 1 yard from the ball, 2 yards ?
Click to expand...

No, offside isn't an offence in itself so a player will only be penalised for....

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate; or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision; or

challenging an opponent for the ball; or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent; or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The rule is silly imo but it isn't unclear. To play the ball is to attempt to kick or head it not simply running towards it.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
No, offside isn't an offence in itself so a player will only be penalised for....

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate; or

interfering with an opponent by:

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision; or

challenging an opponent for the ball; or

clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent; or

making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

The rule is silly imo but it isn't unclear. To play the ball is to attempt to kick or head it not simply running towards it.
Click to expand...
In that definition it states challenging an opponent for the ball. He was being marked by Smith and he was challenging him for the ball and was winning that challenge hence Smith felt it necessary to foul him ! Interpretation is everything! Now what is the definition of a challenge - a race for the ball, a tackle ? My head is spinning now ! I need a beer.....!
 
redharry said:
So should a player only be deemed offside if they actually play the ball ? It is a complete mess and just allows open interpretation of exactly when a player is making a challenge for the ball. As I say 1 yard from the ball, 2 yards ?
Click to expand...
Don't bother, he's argued interfering with play and attempting to play the ball interchangeably to suit whichever argument he wants to make.

All bar one of 3 or 4 officials on the day thought offside.

Every pundit even though they're pissing off the bigger club say it's offside.

Reffwatch almost laughed it off.

The only person who apparently thinks otherwise is a guy with a compulsive urge to argue.

It's all the proof you need.
 
Kudos said:
Don't bother, he's argued interfering with play and attempting to play the ball interchangeably to suit whichever argument he wants to make.

All bar one of 3 or 4 officials on the day thought offside.

Every pundit even though they're pissing off the bigger club say it's offside.

Reffwatch almost laughed it off.

The only person who apparently thinks otherwise is a guy with a compulsive urge to argue.

It's all the proof you need.
Click to expand...

My day job involves interpreting laws and arguing about inconsistencies in how they are drafted. This type of thing ends up in court all of the time because it is surprisingly common for laws to be ambiguous.

I can tell you now that there is absolutely no ambiguity here - it is clear as day that the football lawmakers have considered this exact issue and decided that the foul takes precedence over the offside. I know you don't like it, I don't, but the intention of the law is clear.

Webb explains it in the same way I have - that is the law plain and simple.
 
Derek is right here, the law is pretty clear so the officials got it right. The law needs changing though imo.

The discussion should be around how our experienced right back could make such a stupid decision at a pivotal moment in the game.
 
afcdibby said:
It was a statement.

I have no duty of care here.
Click to expand...

Yes I can see but it just a bit weird to care about another poster's social life. Am I supposed to care about yours? Hopefully you have a good social life but it's hardly relevant to a discussion about the correct interpretation of football laws is it?
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Yes I can see but it just a bit weird to care about another poster's social life. Am I supposed to care about yours? Hopefully you have a good social life but it's hardly relevant to a discussion about the correct interpretation of football laws is it?
Click to expand...
He cares a lot, thats why he posts stuff like this
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;