Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
But two decisions one home and one away v Bournmouth if they had gone the other way would given us three more points
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Muzza's 'goal' Sat...
- Thread starter Sheebo
- Start date
But two decisions one home and one away v Bournmouth if they had gone the other way would given us three more points
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
Well ON side, judging from that fourth pic of yours, BoF. Bugger. That's twice dodgy decisions have f***ed us against Bournemouth this season. Grrrr...
eastlondonseagull
Well-known member
Fourth pic that Barrel of Fun posted - clearly onside when the ball was kicked.
southstandg
New member
If in line, you're not offside
HP Seagull
Danny Cullip: Hero
- Sep 26, 2008
- 1,798
Again, he was clearly, CLEARLY offside. You're telling me you can tell from that angle whether he is on or off? Are you and Silent Bob two of the people who sit in E block and shout "he was clearly onside lino" when a call is given in line with J Block?
You are only in a position to judge if you are in line with the last defender, hence why linesmen get so much stick for poor positioning, those pictures show nothing as you have no perspective on angles or distances. Will you not listen to people on this thread, and this isn't aimed solely at you - EVERYONE who was in line and watching Murray has so far said he was offside, the only doubters are those that were nowhere near in line with play.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
That's a good analogy. The camera does lie. Why should Albion fans who wanted the goal to stand desperately be prepared to say that he was offside? Because we saw what really happened.
Aspinal's Body Double
Member
OK, poor resolution on this picture but I think it is closer to the moment Eliot kicks the ball. You can see the right foot of the last defender just behind Calderon's knee. You can also see Glen's leading right foot. Now if you measure the distances to the edge of the penalty area (using the short edge of the six yard box to get right angle) then I make both of them 50mm from the line (i.e. in line with each other).
Does the "clear daylight" rule still apply?
Does the "clear daylight" rule still apply?
Laws of the game 2010-11
"light of day" isn't in the law (page 31-32 of the pdf, 33-34 of the document), there are quite a few pages regarding "Interpretation of the Laws of the Game and Guidelines for Referees" (offside starts page 102-110 of the pdf, 100-108 of the document) but I don't think the clear daylight is mentioned in them, but I didn't read it thoroughly.
But it does say:
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s
head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the
ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this
definition
So you shouldn't just focus on their feet.
Aspinal's Body Double
Member
Yes, you're right. I think "clear daylight" was guidance issued a few years ago (by FIFA?). But I don't know if it still applies.
I thought their feet were in both cases the further forward part of the body. Yes, I think the rule is any part of the body you can legally score with. I agree heads or chest might have been further forward (bit harder to measure that).
Silent Bob
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Dec 6, 2004
- 22,172
No, because as you rightly point out there are loads of clowns who go to football matches but haven't got a clue what they're seeing.
So I'm afraid photographic evidence outweighs your opinion which is worthless to me. Sorry.
HP Seagull
Danny Cullip: Hero
- Sep 26, 2008
- 1,798
No, because as you rightly point out there are loads of clowns who go to football matches but haven't got a clue what they're seeing.
So I'm afraid photographic evidence outweighs your opinion which is worthless to me. Sorry.
Mine and everyone else's who was also in line?
Fair enough, if that's the stance you're taking - you're still wrong either way, there's no debate to be had. That photograph cannot be classed as evidence, by the way, as you cannot tell from there whether he is on or off.
If he was onside, believe me I would have been up in arms. He wasn't, I and several others around me had called it before the ball had even reached Murray. That will be my last word on the subject, as it's really winding me up. It's also annoying me how wound up I am getting over such a trivial issue.