Somone explain how this is offside

[Jim Smith 2,317]

4 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

As the diagrams from IFAB make crystal clear, the referee did get this one right.

Anyone arguing otherwise either does not know the Law, does not know how the Law is supposed to be interpreted, or has the green/yellow specs on. Either way, their position is uninformed, unqualified, and therefore irrelevant.

Your continued refusal to answer my question suggests you know that the answer will contradict your “computer says no” position on this. A trait I suspect runs deep in the refereeing fraternity in this country. 

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

7 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Your continued refusal to answer my question suggests you know that the answer will contradict your “computer says no” position on this. A trait I suspect runs deep in the refereeing fraternity in this country. 

Your persistent asking of an irrelevant question (especially when the IBAF diagram makes the case clear) suggests you know you're wrong but are trying to save face. A trait, I suspect, that runs deep amongst the ignorant.

Edited August 29, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,745]

Can anyone recall any other examples of where a goal has been disallowed for a header from a corner, other than for a foul having been committed.

Was this really the first time in football history that this situation has happened?

Of course not, goals like this are scored weekly in every league around the world

To have ruled this out was complete bullsh!t

[curious yellow 184]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

The question's not relevant, Jim, which is why it's not been answered. By being stood dead in front of the goalie, it's already considered to be impeding his vision.

 

Considered by who? Certainly not by common sense. It's Schmeichel who is clutching at straws if he claims he couldn't see a ball which is in the air. 

The diagrams relate more to ground shots. A player can still be offside and blocking the keeper's view if he is yards away from the goal but this is never checked. 

VAR was set up to stop blatant injustices but had created even more. 

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

2 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Can anyone recall any other examples of where a goal has been disallowed for a header from a corner, other than for a foul having been committed.

Was this really the first time in football history that this situation has happened?

Of course not, goals like this are scored weekly in every league around the world

To have ruled this out was complete bullsh!t

It's pretty rare because usually you can't be offside receiving the ball directly from a corner kick (physically impossible, for starters you'd have to be ahead of the ball - if you're not ahead of the ball at the time it is played, you can't be offside). Also, defences don't tend to run out straight away on corners, you'll often have men on the posts who stay there.

What was rare was that Leicester's only man on the post went straight out.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Your persistent asking of an irrelevant question (especially when the IBAF diagram makes the case clear) suggests you know you're wrong but are trying to save face. A trait, I suspect, that runs deep amongst the ignorant.

It’s not irrelevant. The fact you keep saying it is irrelevant tends to indicate that it is you who does not understand the rule. If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that he’s automatically interfering with play if he’s in his sight line. That is NOT what the rule says. 

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

1 minute ago, curious yellow said:

Considered by who? Certainly not by common sense. It's Schmeichel who is clutching at straws if he claims he couldn't see a ball which is in the air. 

The diagrams relate more to ground shots. A player can still be offside and blocking the keeper's view if he is yards away from the goal but this is never checked. 

VAR was set up to stop blatant injustices but had created even more. 

IBAF for starters. And even if the shot is in the air, the ball is usually kicked on the ground, so even a somewhat shorter player will be assumed to be in the eyeline. The diagrams relate to all kinds of shots, regardless of on the ground or in the air.

They do not make offside decisions based on whether the ball was on the ground or in the air at the time it was propelled forward.

I do agree that VAR can cause plenty of problems, and I do agree that the offside law has been reformed to the point of being unwieldy beyond belief. There's a lot to be said for applying it just like rugby - if you're ahead of the second-last defender, you're offside. Increasingly, I'm beginning to think going back to that would be an improvement.

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

10 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not irrelevant. The fact you keep saying it is irrelevant tends to indicate that it is you who does not understand the rule. If I am understanding you correctly you are saying that he’s automatically interfering with play if he’s in his sight line. That is NOT what the rule says. 

It is what the diagram makes clear and how the IBAF says the Law should be applied. If you are stood in front of the goalie, you are interfering with him.

The rule says:

Law 11 - Offside (thefa.com)

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
  
  The most relevant part is in bold, backed up by the diagram showing how this should be interpreted. It is either/or, not both. He's stood a yard directly in front of Schmeichel, so is clearly in Schmeichel's sight line. If he were not between the goalposts (for example, near the front stick), it would be moot, as diagram 7 showed.
  
  I really do not think it can be made clearer. The referee has got this right. The Law is unwieldy and needs reform, but that is not the referee's job. As it stands, he's right.
  
  Your complaint should be about law.

Edited August 29, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Danbury Yellow 126]

28 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

It's absolutely obvious why Cantwell stands there. The vast majority of teams don't push out when defending a corner the way that Leicester did yesterday. Most teams would stay in and defend - you would see a defender on one or both posts for instance. Gary Lineker often tells the story of how he learned to stand in the 'Cantwell' position at corners and how he scored a number of goals from there in his career when the ball dropped in front of him at a corner. 

Agree, but if you’re slightly blocking a keeper these days (even not necessarily offside) with VAR all over it comes with this risk, and I wonder if Leicester have sussed this.  Smart set piece defensive play?  Casper certainly knew what to complain about and there’s no way he was appealing for offside.  
 

But it’s all fine margins, on another day it lands at his feet and he gets a tap in!! 

[wcorkcanary 4,334]

Just now, Danbury Yellow said:

Agree, but if you’re slightly blocking a keeper these days (even not necessarily offside) with VAR all over it comes with this risk, and I wonder if Leicester have sussed this.  Smart set piece defensive play?  Casper certainly knew what to complain about and there’s no way he was appealing for offside.  
 

But it’s all fine margins, on another day it lands at his feet and he gets a tap in!! 

It's already another day, let's look forward. 

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,745]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It is what the diagram makes clear and how the IBAF says the Law should be applied. If you are stood in front of the goalie, you are interfering with him.

The rule says:

Law 11 - Offside (thefa.com)

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
  
  The most relevant part is in bold, backed up by the diagram showing how this should be interpreted. It is either/or, not both. He's stood a yard directly in front of Schmeichel, so is clearly in Schmeichel's sight line. If he were not between the goalposts (for example, near the front stick), it would be moot, as diagram 7 showed.
  
  I really do not think it can be made clearer.

Why are you only highlighting part of that point??....you havent highlighted the other part which says "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball" ???

Schmeichel was standing in the middle of the goal...the ball wasnt headed at him to 'play it'...it was headed into the corner?..in order for him to have 'played the ball' he would have needed to dive to his side toward it, which Cantwell didnt prevent him from doing

Edited August 29, 2021 by GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary

[Danbury Yellow 126]

1 minute ago, wcorkcanary said:

It's already another day, let's look forward. 

Yes…..Arsenal???? Is it a must win match 😂

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

Just now, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Why are you only highlighting part of that point??....you havent highlighting the other part which says "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball" ???

Schmeichel was standing in the middle of the goal...the ball wasnt headed at him to 'play it'...it was headed into the corner?..in order for him to have 'played the ball' he would have needed to dive to his side toward it, which Cantwell didnt prevent him from doing

It said "or". It's an either/or, not and.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,745]

2 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It said "or". It's an either/or, not and.

...no it doesnt...the point that you've highlighted ??

[hogesar 9,654]

3 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It said "or". It's an either/or, not and.

To be fair, the point you've highlighted doesn't:

 

Quote

preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision

The argument being that Cantwell isn't preventing the GK from being able to play the ball. JUST obstructing line of vision isn't enough, according to that line

[Jim Smith 2,317]

11 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It is what the diagram makes clear and how the IBAF says the Law should be applied. If you are stood in front of the goalie, you are interfering with him.

The rule says:

Law 11 - Offside (thefa.com)

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
  
  The most relevant part is in bold, backed up by the diagram showing how this should be interpreted. It is either/or, not both. He's stood a yard directly in front of Schmeichel, so is clearly in Schmeichel's sight line. If he were not between the goalposts (for example, near the front stick), it would be moot, as diagram 7 showed.
  
  I really do not think it can be made clearer. The referee has got this right. The Law is unwieldy and needs reform, but that is not the referee's job. As it stands, he's right.
  
  Your complaint should be about law.

Sorry you are ignoring the first part of the bullet. “Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by…..” 

BOTH elements have to be satisfied.

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

5 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

...no it doesnt...the point that you've highlighted ??

By standing dead in front, he makes it harder for Schmeichel to see the shot coming in. Heights of players, whether it's a header or on the floor etc. are all irrelevant, as the diagram made clear.

"An attacker in an offside position (A) is clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision. The player must be penalised for preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball".

Whether it's on the ground or in the air is irrelevant.

You might not like the rule, and you might not like how it is applied, but it is clear the referee applied it correctly.

Edited August 29, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

By standing dead in front, he makes it harder for Schmeichel to see the shot coming in. Heights of players, whether it's a header or on the floor etc. are all irrelevant, as the diagram made clear.

It’s not irrelevant though is it. You keep saying that but it’s not. The relevant questions are:

(1) is he in an offside position; 

(2) if so is he clearly obstructing Schmeicals line of vision (I assume to where the header comes from); and

(3) if so does he, by obstructing said line of vision prevent the keeper from being able to play the ball.

I personally think (2) is a “no” because he’s taller than Todd and the ball is higher than both of them but even if you leave that aside Todd being where he is does not prevent the keeper from playing the ball, he was never getting anywhere near that ball. 

[Taiwan Canary 144]

He's not dead in front when McLean makes contact, hes slightly to the right and McLean is to the left.

[Christoph Stiepermann 1,135]

53 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

That doesn't matter. What matters there is the position of the second-last defender. If they're on the posts - or a keeper behind a player stood in his way - they'll play everyone on. And if he's physically holding the keeper then it's a Law 12 matter anyway - you're looking at whether a foul is committed and not an offside.

Standing in front of the goalie is a common trick, but if all the defenders get out except the keeper and the attacker in front doesn't get out in time, he's running the risk of being caught off. That's what happened here. Todd was a split-second too slow getting out, and he's been caught on camera. In fact, the assistant referee caught him straight off as well.

I agree with this and you're right. But honestly do you think if we were away at Stamford Bridge, Lukaku was in the exact same position as Cantwell was and a Chelsea player headed it in that the goal would have been disallowed? I would bet my house the goal would have stood. 

It's not a conspiracy against us, it's just a lot less grief for a referee to do us wrong over a big club where the spotlight would be on them more. That's what I think happened with Pukki's goal v Spurs, it was 50/50 and the ref decided better to annoy Farke than Mouriniho. 

I also think refs turn up with a chip on their shoulder for having to travel so far out, through difficult roads and have an unconscious bias against us, which doesn't happen for London teams. But that's a whole different discussion. They're people too, not robots. The difficult journey to CR from where they live is bound to have a psychological effect. I'm sure top level refs would much rather a trip to Brentford or Watford than have to come all the way to Norwich. 

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

1 minute ago, Jim Smith said:

It’s not irrelevant though is it. You keep saying that but it’s not. The relevant questions are:

(1) is he in an offside position; 

(2) if so is he clearly obstructing Schmeicals line of vision (I assume to where the header comes from); and

(3) if so does he, by obstructing said line of vision prevent the keeper from being able to play the ball.

I personally think (2) is a “no” because he’s taller than Todd and the ball is higher than both of them but even if you leave that aside Todd being where he is does not prevent the keeper from playing the ball, he was never getting anywhere near that ball. 

Right, I think we've found where you've misunderstood how Law is supposed to be applied. Diagram 6 makes it clear that (3) isn't applicable with keepers and that (2) is assumed to apply when an opposing player is in front of a goalie (your part in brackets about where the header comes from is correct as that's when the ball is propelled forward).

By being rendered unable to see the initial contact - or indeed being an interference that the keeper has to take into account, he's already made it harder for the keeper to make the save. Whether a keeper would be expected to make it is irrelevant here, hence why it's not mentioned in the IBAF decisions.

Diagram 7 shows a similar example but with the striker not in front of the goalie and away from goal. That goal is given.

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

4 minutes ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I agree with this and you're right. But honestly do you think if we were away at Stamford Bridge, Lukaku was in the exact same position as Cantwell was and a Chelsea player headed it in that the goal would have been disallowed? I would bet my house the goal would have stood. 

It's not a conspiracy against us, it's just a lot less grief for a referee to do us wrong over a big club where the spotlight would be on them more. That's what I think happened with Pukki's goal v Spurs, it was 50/50 and the ref decided better to annoy Farke than Mouriniho. 

I also think refs turn up with a chip on their shoulder for having to travel so far out, through difficult roads and have an unconscious bias against us, which doesn't happen for London teams. But that's a whole different discussion. They're people too, not robots. The difficult journey to CR from where they live is bound to have a psychological effect. I'm sure top level refs would much rather a trip to Brentford or Watford than have to come all the way to Norwich. 

Agree there in essence, but that's a totally different matter on how Laws are applied.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Right, I think we've found where you've misunderstood how Law is supposed to be applied. Diagram 6 makes it clear that (3) isn't applicable with keepers and that (2) is assumed to apply when an opposing player is in front of a goalie (your part in brackets about where the header comes from is correct as that's when the ball is propelled forward).

By being rendered unable to see the initial contact - or indeed being an interference that the keeper has to take into account, he's already made it harder for the keeper to make the save. Whether a keeper would be expected to make it is irrelevant here, hence why it's not mentioned in the IBAF decisions.

Diagram 7 shows a similar example but with the striker not in front of the goalie and away from goal. That goal is given.

Whatever. Diagram 6 does not modify the law however much you might want to argue that’s the case. The diagrams are non exhaustive examples for guidance. The law is the law. The referee needs to consider the relevant factors on a case by case basis. I don’t think VAR even looked at the two key questions. 

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

3 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

Whatever. Diagram 6 does not modify the law however much you might want to argue that’s the case. The diagrams are non exhaustive examples for guidance. The law is the law. The referee needs to consider the relevant factors on a case by case basis. I don’t think VAR even looked at the two key questions. 

Diagram 6, like all diagrams and decisions issued by IFAB, clearly indicate how they want referees to interpret the Laws as they are worded and issued - by the IFAB.

(There's a common misgiving that FIFA are responsible for the Laws of Football, but it's actually the IFAB - if you want a law change, the IFAB consists of eight representatives, four from FIFA and one from the English, Northern Irish, Scottish, and Welsh FAs. Changes need to be agreed with a supermajority).

International Football Association Board - Wikipedia

Edited August 29, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Jim Smith 2,317]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Diagram 6, like all diagrams and decisions issued by IBAF, clearly indicate how they want referees to interpret the Laws as they are worded and issued - by the IBAF.

It doesn’t cover this situation. It’s not the law. 
 

we will just have to agree to disagree on this 

[TheGunnShow 5,935]

2 minutes ago, Jim Smith said:

It doesn’t cover this situation. It’s not the law. 
 

we will just have to agree to disagree on this 

It does cover this situation. There really is no agree to disagree here. Incidentally, I just added a link about IFAB for information and how it's not just FIFA's laws of football just for the sake of clarification.

If you don't like the Law as it stands, that's fine. I think it's a badly designed Law as well, particularly when trying to apply it at local level football often without assistant referees. But it's clear the referee got this right.

I'll start another thread on offsides and what may improve it.

[Ken Hairy 3,769]

I know I said I'd bow out, but if I see one more sodding diagram on this thread I think I'll scream 😂

[Taiwan Canary 144]

I think you are judging Todd's actions before he becomes offside, not at the point he becomes offside.  if you look at it, he is slightly to the right and Kenny is to the left. Therefore he is neither impeding vision nor ability.  The decision was bovine excrement. 

[curious yellow 184]

5 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

 

• preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision 

This is where we disagree. 

Cantwell is not "clearly" blocking Schmeichel's vision, just as he wouldn't be if he was in a prostrate position. 

Football is not about technicalities or diagrams, common sense should be used. Just like in everyday life there would be chaos if everyone started abiding by ancient laws. 

If VAR is accurate then I can hold up the Leaning Tower of Pisa. It is usually the player nearest the camera that is offside. If Cantwell is offside at the instant the ball touches McLean's head then it is still another dubious decision that disallows the goal. 

We have to face the fact that we are always going to get these decisions go against us. Constant unjustified criticism in the media is influencing people that we don't deserve to be where we are. If this doesn't have a subliminal effect on those making the decisions it is at least telling them that a bad decision against us isn't likely to provoke much criticism. 

We must support what Farke says in this instance, or we will get a confused view of what is going wrong. 

[Jim Smith 2,317]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

It does cover this situation. There really is no agree to disagree here. Incidentally, I just added a link about IFAB for information and how it's not just FIFA's laws of football just for the sake of clarification.

If you don't like the Law as it stands, that's fine. I think it's a badly designed Law as well, particularly when trying to apply it at local level football often without assistant referees. But it's clear the referee got this right.

I'll start another thread on offsides and what may improve it.

Well I will never agree that it was rightly adjudged offside. I think you are wrong if you continue to say it’s irrelevant whether he prevented the keeper from being able to play the ball.