Question Corr 2nd goal

[hockleyshrimper]

.why is it that an attacking player can be "inactive" but a defending player cannot?

Ive never thought of that before - a very good point. I think 99% of people will agree the rule should never have been changed.

 

[Angell Delight]

Sitting in the South Lower, was looking at Hurst take the free kick and by I got to Corr he looked about 10 yeards offside (as did about half a dozen others). Could some one with a view across the pitch clear up how he managed to stay on side.
MR G

He didn't. Simple. :smile: And I have to say as an ex-referee and assistant myself (as well as someone who was bang in line with it in East Blacks) it was quite possibly the worst decision I've ever seen at the Hall. Not that I'm complaining.....

 

[Hawkwell Blue]

The only doubt was from my position in the East Blacks was how many were offside and by how much.

 

[The General]

CC51DAS is correct. The one-man "wall" played Corr etc onside as the rest of the defence moved up. Poor defending on his part, I feel.

100% incorrect. It was offside, by 3 yards or so, get over it, move on! There was a line of 4 players (including Cressy and Phillips IIRC) who were all offside, even before the Brentford players pushed out. It was a terrible decision and one i wouldnt have liked to be on the other side of. Just hope it doesnt come to bite us back in the bum in the replay!

 

[andykn]

CC51DAS is correct. The one-man "wall" played Corr etc onside as the rest of the defence moved up. Poor defending on his part, I feel.

At the time I thought it odd that the one man wall was inching up to be level with the rest of the defence before the kick was taken, as it made his wall useless. You can see on the highlights he then runs upfield with all the other defenders during the run up.

 

[Lord Football]

Mick - somewhat off at a tangent, but I'll ask as you anywhere as you are here..........why is it that an attacking player can be "inactive" but a defending player cannot?

I understand that the principle of the whole "interfering with play" thing is to give a little more advantage to the attacking team - but it's always bemused me how an attacker can be standing right in front of the goal as a shot goes past him and be deemed "inactive". The next attack a left winger can be played onside by the opposing left back wandering lazily out of defence mulling over what he's going to have for tea later.

Obviously if defenders being active were a consideration it would make the whole thing even more complicated, which is why I firmly believe (and call me old fashioned if you will) that if you are in an offside position you are offside. That's the only way to make it fair. In the current game too much is left to the "discretion" of match officials and it makes it ridiculously difficult for them to do their jobs.

Hmmmm, part of the skill of defending is positioning. The other reason is that would be utterly, utterly impossible ever to judge an offside. Assistant will stand on the second rear most defender. That's his line. That's what he works off. If you complicate that by making it possible for the second rear most defender not be "active", then offside simply becomes a game of guesswork.

As for offside itself, its really not that complex. Its only made complex by pundits who don't understand it and managers who play dumb. The way we define "active" is that "he receives the ball, makes an attempt to receive the ball or interferes with a defender". So long as you know that and you are in line, you wont go far wrong. The problems really arise at the speed of the game compared to the human eye.

 

[davewebbsbrain]

Who cares. The ref and assistant both saw it as onside as the goal stood. We drew, thank you very much BBBC.. Move on please, nothing to see here

 

[maninasuitcase]

The only person that matters is Corr. none of the other touched the ball.
so as amny as may have looked offside its only Corr that mattered- and if he managed to stay on side or level with the last defender.

This is how I understand the current rules. However, Straker's goal against Fleetwood was apparently disallowed because other players were in offside positions when the ball was crossed, even though they didn't touch the ball.

I suppose it is all down to interpretation of the laws and who is active etc. Maybe Mick can shed some more light on this.

 

[stickyboy]

i thought the Straker goal as fleetwood was called offside as they thought it was an attacker as opposed to the defender who put the ball to Britt or Tomlin before he crossed.

my take on it was it was clearly offside but had Brentford defended properly and stayed back as normal to deal with the free kick I doubt we would have scored so its there own fault for basically leaving it to something out of their hands

 

[South Bank Hank]

Mick - somewhat off at a tangent, but I'll ask as you anywhere as you are here..........why is it that an attacking player can be "inactive" but a defending player cannot?

Okay, so I'm not Mick, but...

The law is intended only to target the attacking team and prevent them from attacking in a way that would negatively affect the game (ie: standing someone on the 6 yard box for the whole game and just lobbing the ball to them) while subsequent variations have likely been tweaks to improve the game further. Let's face it, who wants to watch 30 off-sides every match?

Since defenders aren't the target, it's irrelevant whether they are active, inactive or just unsure of their job like the ones at Col U. No offence, but it's like asking why the goalkeeper is the only one allowed to pick up the ball in the penalty area.

 

[dannypav]

Okay, so I'm not Mick, but...

The law is intended only to target the attacking team and prevent them from attacking in a way that would negatively affect the game (ie: standing someone on the 6 yard box for the whole game and just lobbing the ball to them) while subsequent variations have likely been tweaks to improve the game further. Let's face it, who wants to watch 30 off-sides every match?

Since defenders aren't the target, it's irrelevant whether they are active, inactive or just unsure of their job like the ones at Col U. No offence, but it's like asking why the goalkeeper is the only one allowed to pick up the ball in the penalty area.

Or Suarez......................:whistling:

 

[southchurch]

Ive never thought of that before - a very good point. I think 99% of people will agree the rule should never have been changed.

NO !! I am so glad it has been changed. Off side was the scourge of the game a few years back. Defenders did exactly what Brentford tried to do Saturday. They just pushed up at every opportunity and any lazy attacker dawdling back was off side. Even when he was nowhere near the ball. It was so annoying and boring.
Teams don't play for off side like they did then because it's now far too dangerous. Best rule change we have had for years since banning pass backs to the keeper.

 

[fbm]

As for offside itself, its really not that complex. Its only made complex by pundits who don't understand it and managers who play dumb. The way we define "active" is that "he receives the ball, makes an attempt to receive the ball or interferes with a defender". So long as you know that and you are in line, you wont go far wrong. The problems really arise at the speed of the game compared to the human eye.

As a non-ref fan, I get annoyed when sometimes lino's will flag if a player touches the ball, and at other times the same lino, even in the same game, will flag if he just goes for the ball. There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule as to when a player is offside and it's confusing.

As for Corr, I was dead in line with him in East Blacks and he was the furthest forward of our players. In fact, all of our players were goalside of the Brentford defence. I even said to my mate sitting next to me, "Why do we persist in standing so far the wrong side? If the defence doesn't drop back we'll be miles off." At that moment Hurst took the kick and any one of the 5 players should have been offside if they had headed the ball.. As it was, Corr was the most offside, if that is possible.

But it is about time we had some decisions like that go our way as there always seem to be several over a season that go against us but never for us.

 

[Fish]

As a non-ref fan, I get annoyed when sometimes lino's will flag if a player touches the ball, and at other times the same lino, even in the same game, will flag if he just goes for the ball. There doesn't seem to be a consistent rule as to when a player is offside and it's confusing.

...

But it is about time we had some decisions like that go our way as there always seem to be several over a season that go against us but never for us.

As soon as a player engages with play having been in an offside position in that phase of play, he's offside. Sometimes the ball comes to him and he touches it, other times he goes to the ball himself, thereby affecting play. It might look inconsistent to you but it is perfectly consistent.

We're genetically trained to remember bad stuff, I bet if you got someone objective to look at it, 'bad' decisions do even out over a season.

Personally in todays fast but tight game I don't see the point of offside. If we just got rid of it, you wouldn't see teams keep more than one player high, who would have one deep defender with him at most. Trams defend as a unit now, they can't spare a player to be out of the game goal hanging. And if linesman were free from worrying about offside they could spend their time actually helping the ref control the game by flagging shirt pulling and deliberate breakdowns of play.

 

[Mick]

NO !! I am so glad it has been changed. Off side was the scourge of the game a few years back. Defenders did exactly what Brentford tried to do Saturday. They just pushed up at every opportunity and any lazy attacker dawdling back was off side. Even when he was nowhere near the ball. It was so annoying and boring.
Teams don't play for off side like they did then because it's now far too dangerous. Best rule change we have had for years since banning pass backs to the keeper.

Couldn't agree more. Whilst it would obviously be easier for the officials it would be seriously detrimental to the game.

 

[fbm]

As soon as a player engages with play having been in an offside position in that phase of play, he's offside. Sometimes the ball comes to him and he touches it, other times he goes to the ball himself, thereby affecting play. It might look inconsistent to you but it is perfectly consistent.

We're genetically trained to remember bad stuff, I bet if you got someone objective to look at it, 'bad' decisions do even out over a season.

Personally in todays fast but tight game I don't see the point of offside. If we just got rid of it, you wouldn't see teams keep more than one player high, who would have one deep defender with him at most. Trams defend as a unit now, they can't spare a player to be out of the game goal hanging. And if linesman were free from worrying about offside they could spend their time actually helping the ref control the game by flagging shirt pulling and deliberate breakdowns of play.

But it was brought in for a reason... todays game is only so tight because the offside rule is there. Take it away, the pitch becomes technically bigger and it invites kick and rush.

 

[Mick]

As for offside itself, its really not that complex. Its only made complex by pundits who don't understand it and managers who play dumb. The way we define "active" is that "he receives the ball, makes an attempt to receive the ball or interferes with a defender". So long as you know that and you are in line, you wont go far wrong. The problems really arise at the speed of the game compared to the human eye.

I disagree. I think the interpretations ARE complex and ill-defined. You will find top officials disagreeing with each other over interpretation of the guidelines. They are also inconsistently applied at all levels of football.

How do you define "makes an attempt to receive the ball" ? Would you include getting into position for a cross?

How would you define "interferes with a defender" ?

No, it is far from straightforward and I don't think the Laws, guidelines and interpretations that currently exist are fit for purpose.

 

[Mick]

As soon as a player engages with play having been in an offside position in that phase of play, he's offside. Sometimes the ball comes to him and he touches it, other times he goes to the ball himself, thereby affecting play. It might look inconsistent to you but it is perfectly consistent.

"engages with play" is not a recognised term within the Laws of Football so you will need to define that as part of your statement.

 

[londonblue]

NO !! I am so glad it has been changed. Off side was the scourge of the game a few years back. Defenders did exactly what Brentford tried to do Saturday. They just pushed up at every opportunity and any lazy attacker dawdling back was off side. Even when he was nowhere near the ball. It was so annoying and boring.
Teams don't play for off side like they did then because it's now far too dangerous. Best rule change we have had for years since banning pass backs to the keeper.

Or even one that has been down injured and is slow getting back.

 

[londonblue]

One thing that hasn't been discussed is whether or not Corr is behind the ball when Hurst crosses it. I can't get the highlights here at work, so I can't say. Can someone have a look? If he's behind the ball he can't be off side.

I'm also assuming Hursts cross went forward. If that went sideways then he can't be off side either...again I can't get the highlights to check, but I'm pretty sure the ball went forwards.