What was wrong with our first (disallowed) goal?

[symyjym]

What about if the defending team wanted to take a quick free kick from the disallowed goal? Are you now denying them that opportunity?

It is more about denying a good goal, which outweighs the opportunity of a quick free kick. The team taking the quick free kick would prefer to have the goal if the boot was on the other foot, so it works both ways. The quick free kick after an offside goal doesn’t happen that often.

 

[Sheebo]

I'm a bit mystified by this debate, the colouring of the grass is the clearest indicator of who's on/offside, at the point of impact from Calderon only CMS's feet are advanced from the line, all of the Wolves defenders are behind it? Surely that's conclusive enough without drawing inaccurate coloured lines across the pitch?

I know what you're saying but I think the Wolves defender nearest CMS has his left foot dangling in the air. Just because it isn't planted doesn't mean it isn't playing him onside in the air - which is what I see. It's ridiculously tight and as I said earlier, even if we'd got the decision there's no guarantee we'd have scored the 2nd goal. I do think there's little doubt the lino just guessed though - late flag etc too - seemed to be ball watching then just stuck the flag up cos cms got there first...?

 

[Everest]

late flag etc too - seemed to be ball watching then just stuck the flag up cos cms got there first...?

The offence didn't actually take place until CMS touched the ball.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I think you would do well to check out the moment again because you will see that at no time does CMS go from an offside position to an onside one. It's on BBC i-player at 35 mins 30 seconds. There was no second phase before CMS put the ball away.

Well he's not offside to start with going by the footage. Secondly yes it seems the defender didn't catch up with CMS. When the ball spills out of TK to CMS, if a defender was playing him on in that instance then it would and should be given. But it's all irrelevant anyway because CMS was level when the shot came in.

 

[Sheebo]

The offence didn't actually take place until CMS touched the ball.

True that. Although correct, most linos flag early. Used to be a pet hate of mine playing. I recall once a (cheating) opposition lino flung his flag up for one of our lads being offside the second a deep free kick was sent into the box. The ref blew up straight away and awarded the offside. It had happened a few times in the game. The ref simply couldn't grasp what I was trying to tell him - the lino should wait to see who interfered with play / touched the ball first. So poor that refs even at grassroots level don't know the basic laws.... I nearly got a booking for my protests of course

The officials were awful yesterday and the flag wasn't raised that quickly even when he touched it there was a seconds' pause.

One thing this does prove is the confusion on the offside rule.

 

[Jimmy Grimble]

I was perfectly in line with from WSU. My initial reaction was just onside. Still think the same.

I also think the lino was a bit late on his call, it wasn't instant as CMS touched it, there was still a few second pause.

 

[drew]

Well he's not offside to start with going by the footage. Secondly yes it seems the defender didn't catch up with CMS. When the ball spills out of TK to CMS, if a defender was playing him on in that instance then it would and should be given. But it's all irrelevant anyway because CMS was level when the shot came in.

I disagree that if a defender had caught up with him it would have been legal. If we take it that the linesman believed he was offside when Teixeira shot then even if a defender did get ahead of him before he first touched the ball and put it away, it would still be offside as at the time of the first shot he was in an offside position and gaining an advantage (most certainly as he put the ball away). I have never seen an example as you describe where the rebound has been treated as a 'second phase'.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I disagree that if a defender had caught up with him it would have been legal. If we take it that the linesman believed he was offside when Teixeira shot then even if a defender did get ahead of him before he first touched the ball and put it away, it would still be offside as at the time of the first shot he was in an offside position and gaining an advantage (most certainly as he put the ball away). I have never seen an example as you describe where the rebound has been treated as a 'second phase'.

It's all basically the replay of the goal and the angle I saw it at, wasn't exactly the same. From my angle (level 18 yard line) in the stands it looked like the defender got back and that TK makes the save (defensive clearance) and CMS knocks it in. However from the replay the defender does not get back, and 2, TK parries the ball instead of clearing it. It all makes a difference. Say CMS was back onside when he recieves the ball off TK, but it's a clearance by TK of a save or punch or any other kind of clearance, then when Macca picks up the ball it's phase 2. What happened in hindsight after watching the replay is CMS recieves the ball from TK via ricochet, therefore same phase.
Best way to explain it is this, attacking player is offside but doesn't recieve the ball from a team mate, he is also not interfering as he's not in the keepers view and not challenging defenders, the ball gets headed away or goalkeeper saves/punches away, the attacker then recieves the ball now onside as the clearance of any kind starts phase 2. If the ball ricochets away or hits the bar and comes back to the attacker, it is not considered a defensive clearance and therefore is still phase 1 and Macca was gaining an advantage from the initial offside. So in effect you are correct that when CMS gets the ball it's still the first phase and if the Lino thought he was initially off then he should flag him off. But where I disgree with you is that firstly IMO CMS was on initially, and 2 that had there been a clearance of any kind from the opposing team it starts phase 2. This is why offside needs to be simplified again so that these kinds of disagreements between players, officials, managers and fans doesn't happen. There are also many rules that don't get exploited or are not enforced. I saw a game in South America where a keeper had an almighty kick , an attacking player would stand offside on the D of the opposing penalty area, goalhanging basically, and recieved the ball from his own keepers goal kick, he was 20yrds offside but you can't be offside from a goal kick. The defence suddenly dropped much deeper after that, the attacker fluffed his chance anyway. Edited to add...I also appreciate that you have resorted to an adult conversation about the offside rule rather than responding to a post with a sarcastic condesending reply about not having watched much football.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

True that. Although correct, most linos flag early. Used to be a pet hate of mine playing. I recall once a (cheating) opposition lino flung his flag up for one of our lads being offside the second a deep free kick was sent into the box. The ref blew up straight away and awarded the offside. It had happened a few times in the game. The ref simply couldn't grasp what I was trying to tell him - the lino should wait to see who interfered with play / touched the ball first. So poor that refs even at grassroots level don't know the basic laws.... I nearly got a booking for my protests of course

The officials were awful yesterday and the flag wasn't raised that quickly even when he touched it there was a seconds' pause.

One thing this does prove is the confusion on the offside rule.

Sorry, but whilst I understand your point, I have complete sympathy with your ref there. In a situation like a free kick into the box, the Lino (particularly a cheating opposition one) will always flag for any offside players. It's such a bundle of bodies, in such a small area, that just by being there you are active, regardless of whether you are actually the one who heads it.

 

[drew]

It's all basically the replay of the goal and the angle I saw it at, wasn't exactly the same. From my angle (level 18 yard line) in the stands it looked like the defender got back and that TK makes the save (defensive clearance) and CMS knocks it in. However from the replay the defender does not get back, and 2, TK parries the ball instead of clearing it. It all makes a difference. Say CMS was back onside when he recieves the ball off TK, but it's a clearance by TK of a save or punch or any other kind of clearance, then when Macca picks up the ball it's phase 2. What happened in hindsight after watching the replay is CMS recieves the ball from TK via ricochet, therefore same phase.
Best way to explain it is this, attacking player is offside but doesn't recieve the ball from a team mate, he is also not interfering as he's not in the keepers view and not challenging defenders, the ball gets headed away or goalkeeper saves/punches away, the attacker then recieves the ball now onside as the clearance of any kind starts phase 2. If the ball ricochets away or hits the bar and comes back to the attacker, it is not considered a defensive clearance and therefore is still phase 1 and Macca was gaining an advantage from the initial offside. So in effect you are correct that when CMS gets the ball it's still the first phase and if the Lino thought he was initially off then he should flag him off. But where I disgree with you is that firstly IMO CMS was on initially, and 2 that had there been a clearance of any kind from the opposing team it starts phase 2. This is why offside needs to be simplified again so that these kinds of disagreements between players, officials, managers and fans doesn't happen. There are also many rules that don't get exploited or are not enforced. I saw a game in South America where a keeper had an almighty kick , an attacking player would stand offside on the D of the opposing penalty area, goalhanging basically, and recieved the ball from his own keepers goal kick, he was 20yrds offside but you can't be offside from a goal kick. The defence suddenly dropped much deeper after that, the attacker fluffed his chance anyway. Edited to add...I also appreciate that you have resorted to an adult conversation about the offside rule rather than responding to a post with a sarcastic condesending reply about not having watched much football.

I understand the scenario you are painting but I just think you are wrong in your belief that there is a second phase in that situation. The keeper's parry does not start phase 2, it is still the same phase as the initial shot and I would challenge you to find an example that doesn't follow that.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I understand the scenario you are painting but I just think you are wrong in your belief that there is a second phase in that situation. The keeper's parry does not start phase 2, it is still the same phase as the initial shot and I would challenge you to find an example that doesn't follow that.

Read the post again. The TK save was not the start of phase 2, what I am saying is that if TK had saved and cleared rather than deflecting the shot it then would have been phase 2. The angle I watched it at made it look more of a clearing save than a parry.

 

[wunt be druv]

Basically,there should be a rule that an Albion player can never be offside at the Amex,therefore the goal should have been awarded.

 

[Bold Seagull]

Onside. Supposed to give the benefit of doubt to the attacker. Plus it was a home game. Definitely onside.

 

[drew]

Read the post again. The TK save was not the start of phase 2, what I am saying is that if TK had saved and cleared rather than deflecting the shot it then would have been phase 2. The angle I watched it at made it look more of a clearing save than a parry.

I think we are going around in circles. Firstly, your initial post was suggesting that even if CMS was in an offside position at the time of Tex's shot, the save from TK started phase two by which time CMS was onside and therefore the goal should have stood. My argument was, and always has been, that the save by TK, whether it is a parry or a 'clearing save' did not start a second phase.

However, if there were to be a phase two, the ball would have to have been touched by another Brighton player, who was onside at the time of the shot, and, at the time of that touch, CMS was then in an onside position before receiving the ball to score. That didn't happen so it was all part of the same phase.

 

[Everest]

Read the post again. The TK save was not the start of phase 2, what I am saying is that if TK had saved and cleared rather than deflecting the shot it then would have been phase 2. The angle I watched it at made it look more of a clearing save than a parry.

“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position


Doesn't matter whether he deflected or cleared it.
It was a deliberate save

 

[Easy 10]

Six pages and still no consensus.

I think this proves beyond any doubt that TV replays on offside decisions would cause carnage, and solve nothing.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I think we are going around in circles. Firstly, your initial post was suggesting that even if CMS was in an offside position at the time of Tex's shot, the save from TK started phase two by which time CMS was onside and therefore the goal should have stood. My argument was, and always has been, that the save by TK, whether it is a parry or a 'clearing save' did not start a second phase.

However, if there were to be a phase two, the ball would have to have been touched by another Brighton player, who was onside at the time of the shot, and, at the time of that touch, CMS was then in an onside position before receiving the ball to score. That didn't happen so it was all part of the same phase.

That is basically what I said. As I saw the replay you provided, I saw it was all phase one. As I saw it at the time I thought CMS picked up the ball in phase 2. Still it's irrelevant now as the goal was IMO incorrectly not given as CMS was on initially. Although it was very very close.

 

[Captain Sensible]

“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position


Doesn't matter whether he deflected or cleared it.
It was a deliberate save

I get what you are saying but a clearance starts phase 2. Maybe I was wrong about the save.

 

[Geriatric Seagull]

If CMS had taken the two easy chances he had in the first half none of this would have mattered!

 

[drew]

I get what you are saying but a clearance starts phase 2. Maybe I was wrong about the save.

But there was no clearance, that is the point. It was just a save.