Somone explain how this is offside

[lake district canary 4,531]

6 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

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

Be my guest.....

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

2 minutes ago, curious yellow said:

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. 

Football may not be about diagrams, but when said diagrams are issued by those who are responsible for the Laws of Football, and cover how Laws should be interpreted - and the whole argument is about how a Law was interpreted, then it's key. Especially when people are incorrectly saying that the referee got it wrong due to not knowing the Law, not understanding the Law, or not being aware of how the Law should be applied. That was precisely why I put the IFAB diagrams in from the Laws of Football, to aid such clarification.

I agree that VAR is not always accurate, but that's another discussion for another day. This is really about application of Law at its core. The confusion is from people adding their own interpretations on Law.

[Jim Smith 2,317]

8 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Football may not be about diagrams, but when said diagrams are issued by those who are responsible for the Laws of Football, and cover how Laws should be interpreted - and the whole argument is about how a Law was interpreted, then it's key. Especially when people are incorrectly saying that the referee got it wrong due to not knowing the Law, not understanding the Law, or not being aware of how the Law should be applied. That was precisely why I put the IFAB diagrams in from the Laws of Football, to aid such clarification.

I agree that VAR is not always accurate, but that's another discussion for another day. This is really about application of Law at its core. The confusion is from people adding their own interpretations on Law.

The issue is they didn’t even consider the two key relevant questions other than is he offside. They didn’t apply the law correctly. It’s not about interiretation

[curious yellow 184]

7 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said:

Football may not be about diagrams, but when said diagrams are issued by those who are responsible for the Laws of Football, and cover how Laws should be interpreted - and the whole argument is about how a Law was interpreted, then it's key. Especially when people are incorrectly saying that the referee got it wrong due to not knowing the Law, not understanding the Law, or not being aware of how the Law should be applied. That was precisely why I put the IFAB diagrams in from the Laws of Football, to aid such clarification.

I agree that VAR is not always accurate, but that's another discussion for another day. This is really about application of Law at its core. The confusion is from people adding their own interpretations on Law.

Knowledge of the law is important but should be used with discretion. I refer you to the case of Fer v Cardiff. 

It should also be taken into consideration that Leicester have won the League and the FA Cup from dodgy decisions. 

It was a good goal, I rest my case OTBC. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

1 minute ago, curious yellow said:

Knowledge of the law is important but should be used with discretion. I refer you to the case of Fer v Cardiff. 

It should also be taken into consideration that Leicester have won the League and the FA Cup from dodgy decisions. 

It was a good goal, I rest my case OTBC. 

If the Fer goal is the one I'm thinking of, that was about the referee not blowing his whistle to restart play. Totally different Law (still annoying, but still totally different). And all teams get some dodgy decisions going their way, although there definitely is evidence that bigger teams or home teams do tend to get a subconscious edge.

Knowledge of the Law is important, agreed. However, IFAB diagrams and decisions show you how they should be applied and interpreted. The goal was legitimately crossed off.

The Law is unwieldy, needs reform, and is easily abused - but as it stands, it was applied correctly as it currently stands. Anything else is reinterpreting the Law into something not intended by IFAB and to a lesser extent FIFA and the English, Northern Irish, Scottish and Welsh FAs.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,748]

I'll ask again....can anyone ever recall another goal from a header from a corner being ruled out before in this manner?

...or was this genuinely the first time this corcumstance has happened in 150+ yrs of association football?

[Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man 3,819]

4 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

I'll ask again....can anyone ever recall another goal from a header from a corner being ruled out before in this manner?

...or was this genuinely the first time this corcumstance has happened in 150+ yrs of association football?

It happened last season, with Arsenal seeing a very similar goal disallowed, against Leicester funnily enough.

 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

15 minutes ago, Wacky Waving Inflatable Arm Flailing Tube Man said:

It happened last season, with Arsenal seeing a very similar goal disallowed, against Leicester funnily enough.

 

Interesting - hints that maybe Leicester defend corners that way quite often. 

[TheGunnShow 5,940]

5 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Interesting - hints that maybe Leicester defend corners that way quite often. 

Might just defend that way if an attacker is directly on the keeper. We'd need to see the formation before the corner is taken. My guess is they might start with a man or two on the posts, so an attacker would NOT be offside if just in front of the goalie, then as the kicker moves in to hit it, the guys on the posts bomb out to leave the attacker offside if another attacking player from further back gets a header / shot on it.

Edited August 29, 2021 by TheGunnShow

[Jim Smith 2,317]

18 minutes ago, Thirsty Lizard said:

Interesting - hints that maybe Leicester defend corners that way quite often. 

In that instance thought you can see the player is going to impede the keeper and the ball is going to go close to them both 

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

You do sometimes see other teams defending corners in this way.

3.42 to 4.02 here. (In this case the offside was totally unarguable because Teemu actually headed it in from an offside position)

 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Has Terry Waite been released yet?

[Thirsty Lizard 3,161]

19 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

Has Terry Waite been released yet?

No - his captors have said that they will only release him when he can adequately explain why Kenny's goal was ruled out yesterday. Expect him to remain incarcerated for a long while yet! 😉 

[Heading South 24]

7 hours ago, Christoph Stiepermann said:

I wasn't actually aware this was a rule before the game yesterday. But it's got me thinking about all the times I've seen opposition players standing on Krul's toes in the past couple of years and it's gone unpunished. 

It seems so harsh to me that Cantwell can be punished for standing near Schmeichal who is basically a foot taller than him but someone like Antonio, Wood or Benteke can challenge our keeper for corners and not get punished for it. Seems like the ref was just well up for showing he can get a difficult obscure decision right at our expense. Somehow I think if that occurred at Stamford Bridge or Old Trafford he wouldn't have given it. 

4 inches taller and a keeper most of the time is crouched ready to spring in any direction, so not really taller than Todd in match action !

[Capt. Pants 4,226]

At least we'll know not to put a man on the keeper next time we get a corner, or stand in an offside position.

[Robert Barnes 19]

My problem with this rule is.if the leicester player had have put Cantrell onside he would have not been interfering with play, my understanding is that the call was that cantwell was offside and interfering with play so, because of a matter of a few inches he wouldn’t have been interfering even though he was still blocking Schmeichel's vision make no sense