| Juventus mayhem on 10:31 - Sep 12 with 1255 views | OsborneOneNil |
My Euro acca failed due to Juve not winning. Joke. |  | |  |
| Juventus mayhem on 11:02 - Sep 12 with 1143 views | SitfcB |
Shocking decision.
[Post edited 12 Sep 2022 11:04]
|  |
| |
| Juventus mayhem on 11:08 - Sep 12 with 1089 views | MattinLondon |
| Juventus mayhem on 10:31 - Sep 12 by OsborneOneNil |
My Euro acca failed due to Juve not winning. Joke. |
Did you lose out on a lot of money? |  | | |
| Juventus mayhem on 11:18 - Sep 12 with 1071 views | OsborneOneNil |
| Juventus mayhem on 11:08 - Sep 12 by MattinLondon |
Did you lose out on a lot of money? |
Would’ve been £117
Not loads, but feel a tad cheated! | | | |
| Juventus mayhem on 12:59 - Sep 12 with 914 views | Swansea_Blue |
At least the ref had it all under control lol
Awful decision that. How can they be making VAR decisions based on only seeing part of the way along the line? |  |
| |
| Juventus mayhem on 13:08 - Sep 12 with 883 views | HighgateBlue |
This part of the law has become overly complicated in my opinion (pasted below). I have no idea whether the law is applied correctly here, but if it is, then the law needs changing. I can't see that the player deemed to be offside made the blindest bit of difference to the goal being scored.
However, looking at the elements of the offence:
(1) he is in an offside position (I've not pasted that element of the rule as life is too short) when the ball is played by a teammate. His leg appears to be closer to the goal than any other opponent apart from the keeper.
(2) does he become "involved with active play" by "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"?
It seems to me that he clearly attempts to play a ball which is close - there can be no real question of that. Did that action, i.e. attempting to play a ball, impact on the keeper? It's such a stupid turn of phrase in my view. Impacting to even a tiny degree will surely count, but most of us would consider that only a substantial impact should count.
It doesn't impact in the sense of making a difference to the goal, but this offence is not about goals being scored or not - the offside offence has either taken place or not, before the ball crosses the line. I think his presence might be said to impact the keeper in the sense that the keeper has to consider him for a split second, and the attacker might make contact with the ball, sending it in a different direction. I think most of us would say instinctively that the goal should stand because jumping Jefferelli made no difference to the goal, and that should probably be the test, but it ain't. Silly rule or silly application of it? I'm not sure. I agree with most that it's very silly though.
Nearly as silly as players getting sent off for doing a striptease.
"2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
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
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).
In situations where:
a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
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
an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used" |  | | |
| Juventus mayhem on 13:35 - Sep 12 with 766 views | SitfcB |
| Juventus mayhem on 13:08 - Sep 12 by HighgateBlue |
This part of the law has become overly complicated in my opinion (pasted below). I have no idea whether the law is applied correctly here, but if it is, then the law needs changing. I can't see that the player deemed to be offside made the blindest bit of difference to the goal being scored.
However, looking at the elements of the offence:
(1) he is in an offside position (I've not pasted that element of the rule as life is too short) when the ball is played by a teammate. His leg appears to be closer to the goal than any other opponent apart from the keeper.
(2) does he become "involved with active play" by "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent"?
It seems to me that he clearly attempts to play a ball which is close - there can be no real question of that. Did that action, i.e. attempting to play a ball, impact on the keeper? It's such a stupid turn of phrase in my view. Impacting to even a tiny degree will surely count, but most of us would consider that only a substantial impact should count.
It doesn't impact in the sense of making a difference to the goal, but this offence is not about goals being scored or not - the offside offence has either taken place or not, before the ball crosses the line. I think his presence might be said to impact the keeper in the sense that the keeper has to consider him for a split second, and the attacker might make contact with the ball, sending it in a different direction. I think most of us would say instinctively that the goal should stand because jumping Jefferelli made no difference to the goal, and that should probably be the test, but it ain't. Silly rule or silly application of it? I'm not sure. I agree with most that it's very silly though.
Nearly as silly as players getting sent off for doing a striptease.
"2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
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
or
gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has:
rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent
been deliberately saved by any opponent
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
A ‘save’ is when a player stops, or attempts to stop, a ball which is going into or very close to the goal with any part of the body except the hands/arms (unless the goalkeeper within the penalty area).
In situations where:
a player moving from, or standing in, an offside position is in the way of an opponent and interferes with the movement of the opponent towards the ball this is an offside offence if it impacts on the ability of the opponent to play or challenge for the ball; if the player moves into the way of an opponent and impedes the opponent's progress (e.g blocks the opponent) the offence should be penalised under Law 12
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
an offence is committed against a player in an offside position who is already playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge
*The first point of contact of the 'play' or 'touch' of the ball should be used" |
He wasn’t offside whatever what you look at it…
| |
| |
| Juventus mayhem on 14:01 - Sep 12 with 690 views | SamWhiteUK |
| Juventus mayhem on 13:35 - Sep 12 by SitfcB |
He wasn’t offside whatever what you look at it…
|
I was hoping someone was going to point this out. Whether he interfered with the keeper or not is irrelevant - he wasn't in an offside position! |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Juventus mayhem on 14:18 - Sep 12 with 636 views | HighgateBlue |
| Juventus mayhem on 14:01 - Sep 12 by SamWhiteUK |
I was hoping someone was going to point this out. Whether he interfered with the keeper or not is irrelevant - he wasn't in an offside position! |
OK, well that is an exceedingly good point. Having watched the highlights from the game and rewound it myself a few times I never saw that angle. If VAR is to work, it needs to not miss entire players - refs must have all of the information. That really is daft, isn't it?
But I really do think that the rule needs clarification - the ballooning complexity of the rule over time has not made it clearer, but less clear. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
