Newcastle v Man City

[Pavilionaire]

The player certainly wasn't there to gain an advantage because the moment he touches the ball he's offside. It's almost as if the ref has disallowed it to penalise Gouffran for being so slow to clear out of the 6-yard box, regardless of whether he was interfering with play.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

I copy and pasted the entire offside law and its interpretation. Where in the laws is your quote?

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf

Slide 17 of that document.

 

[Acker79]

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf

Slide 17 of that document.

That's not actually from the laws of the game, it's from the teaching materials section.

If you click the link for the laws of the game you get
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footb...upport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/index.html which contains a link (on the right hand side) to the PDF of the current laws of the game

I would argue, that since it is not in the laws of the game it isn't actually part of the law. Perhaps it was taken out of the laws after the teaching material was produced, perhaps there's some other explanation, but given that Dermot Gallagher always does his best to defend any controversial refereeing decision, yet in this case said that everything he knows (and he is a very experienced ref) and has learned in recent years say that the goal should have stood, it suggests to me that part of the teaching materials is not relevant.

Even if we were to consider it relevant, I would argue a) it's unreasonable to think the player was trying to deceive anyone, and b) that it is also unreasonable to consider he distracted anyone.



(Incidentally, why are FIFA still putting 100 years 1904-2004 at the bottom of those slides, it's been ten years since the centenary!)

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

The player certainly wasn't there to gain an advantage because the moment he touches the ball he's offside. It's almost as if the ref has disallowed it to penalise Gouffran for being so slow to clear out of the 6-yard box, regardless of whether he was interfering with play.

Exactly this. If Gouffran had made any attempt at all to run back to an onside position, he would almost certainly have been out of the way of the shot and the goal would surely have stood. What, if anything, was he thinking by staying in there?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

That's not actually from the laws of the game, it's from the teaching materials section.

If you click the link for the laws of the game you get
http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footb...upport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/index.html which contains a link (on the right hand side) to the PDF of the current laws of the game

I would argue, that since it is not in the laws of the game it isn't actually part of the law. Perhaps it was taken out of the laws after the teaching material was produced, perhaps there's some other explanation, but given that Dermot Gallagher always does his best to defend any controversial refereeing decision, yet in this case said that everything he knows (and he is a very experienced ref) and has learned in recent years say that the goal should have stood, it suggests to me that part of the teaching materials is not relevant.

Even if we were to consider it relevant, I would argue a) it's unreasonable to think the player was trying to deceive anyone, and b) that it is also unreasonable to consider he distracted anyone.



(Incidentally, why are FIFA still putting 100 years 1904-2004 at the bottom of those slides, it's been ten years since the centenary!)

I think that Gallagher goes along with the Sky hyperbole too much anyway. I think that the offside law in general since undergoing major changes in the last few years has made the job much harder for Referees and their assistants - and this is speaking from first hand experience.
This is why I would love for Refs to be able to come out and explain their decisions -then at least we would know why yesterday the decision was made. I'd suggest that by this situation being able to arise the law can be easily undermined and the (in)activity part of it is possibly not fit for purpose.

I would guess yesterday that the Referee has said to Pardew they gained an unfair advantage from a player being in an offside position.

As for the 100 years - well that just sums up FIFA doesn't it!

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

I've no doubt Hart would have reacted differently had Gouffran not been there, nor dived so theatrically out of the way of the ball, so in that sense he was interfering with play. The laws of the game seem clear that it should be a goal, however, so this is one case where it seems that the law is an ass.