New Blog Posted - Offside rule + 'obvious' goalscoring opportunity

[Yobocop 1,095]

Please find my new blog posted for this week, there are two issues this week to discuss:

http://services.pinkun.com/FORUMS/PINKUN/CS/blogs/from_luton_to_norwich/archive/2010/10/28/2314082.aspx

Comments, as always, are welcome and let''s hear your idea''s on punishments for players who stop ''obvious'' goalscoring opportunities

[Pete Raven 276]

I shall add blog re-directs to the list of things to sort...Try this:www.pinkun.com/from-luton-to-norwich

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

In my role as forum pedant:[8-|]

"The Offside Rule - The most complicated rule some might say, perhaps not. If the player is further up the pitch than the 2nd last opposing player(this includes the goalkeeper by the way) when the ball is played forward, is in the opponents half of the field and is in active play said player is offside."

That''s not right. The rule is two defenders (ie two members of the defending team), not two defenders one of whom one is the keeper. It can be two outfielders. This is why the rule needs to be changed to one outfielder. It was formulated at a time when the goalie stayed in his six-yard box. Now they do all sorts of mad things, such as going up for corners.

There was an occasion several years ago when we were leading Palace 1-0 going into added time. Nigel Martyn went up for a corner, cunningly leaving only one outfielder back. We broke away from the corner and "scored", only for it to be correctly ruled out because Martyn was still puffing  his way back. We still won.

[Yobocop 1,095]

The rule as I understand it is that it is 2 members of the opposing team regardless of position....

But I stand corrected.

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]The rule as I understand it is that it is 2 members of the opposing team regardless of position.... But I stand corrected.[/quote]

 

Yes, but that wasn''t what you wrote in your blog! You said one had to be the goalie.

 

[Yobocop 1,095]

Ah, maybe I should of wrote that better...

I was trying to say that it could include the goalkeeper as for instance people think that when an offside is given, the last defender is behind the play so therefore it isn''t offside. I think you probably summed that scenario up better in your write up

Slap on the wrists for me for not explaining myself properly...

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]Ah, maybe I should of wrote that better... I was trying to say that it could include the goalkeeper as for instance people think that when an offside is given, the last defender is behind the play so therefore it isn''t offside. I think you probably summed that scenario up better in your write up Slap on the wrists for me for not explaining myself properly...[/quote]

--

 

Cheers![Y] It did read as though you thought the two defenders HAD by definition to include the goalie, but obviously you do (unlike quite a few players and pundits!) understand the rule.

But I stick to my wider point, that changes in the way the game is played have made the rule outdated, and it should be altered to one outfielder. I keep meaning to write to Michel about this. Must get round to it...[;)]

 

[Yobocop 1,095]

What do you think about my penalty idea for player''s who stop an obvious goalscoring opportunity?

[PurpleCanary 5,554]

[quote user="Give Peas a Chance "]What do you think about my penalty idea for player''s who stop an obvious goalscoring opportunity?[/quote]

 

---

 

I think it''s a very clever idea but it would introduce a whole new concept if you can get a penalty for an offence outside the box. At the moment the logic behind awarding penalties is that the offence has stopped a near-certain goal. Of course that''s not always the case. You see stupid fouls on the edge of the box when the forward is going nowhere. Or unnecessary handballs. But the general idea is that a goal has been prevented.

The logic behind the sending off for denying a goalscoring chance outside the box is partly that (and only partly because it''s often not a certain goal that is being prevented) but also partly a punishment for cynicism.

I think also the idea of the captain having a say opens up a can of worms. In the first minute of a game he''ll opt for the sending-off; in the last minute the penalty. Unless he''s very stupid!

The other point, to be honest, is that you''re hedging your bets over whether a goalscoring opportunity really has been stopped. You say this choice would happen if the referee had come to that conclusion, but then justify the award of a penalty rather than a sending-off on the basis that we couldn''t be sure if the referee had been right about that goalscoring chance. But that applies to any decision. You can''t start legislating on the basis that a referee has made a mistake.

 

[nutty nigel 7,509]

It''s difficult to find a fair way to compensate the side who have the goalscoring opportunity denied. The player get''s sent off so I guess the severity of the punishment depends on what stage of the game the offence was committed. The last minute could be a right result for the offenders while the first minute would be a disaster.

 

I remember when we played Stockport in our last regular game of the play-off season. The Stockport keeper Dibble came charging out the area and took out Mark Rivers I think it was. It was deemed as a goalscoring opportunity so we got a free kick and Dibble was sent off. The free kick didn''t come to anything but we had a man advantage for 88 minutes and won comfortably. Stockport manager Carlton Palmer was rightly furious with Dibble for his actions. The opposite of this would be if the score was 0-0 and it happened in the last minute. Dibble could well have been a hero depending what was on the result of the game.

 

But imagine if we played Cardiff then QPR in the last 2 games of the season. The Cardiff game is 0-0 in the last minute when Elliott Ward denies Bellamy a clear goalscoring opportunity. Ward is sent off and ther free kick comes to nothing. The game ends 0-0 but we face QPR without our best defender because of Wards red against Cardiff. QPR take advantage of the situation and beat us pipping Cardiff to the title by one point.

 

Now I don''t know the answer to this. But in such cases the penalty paid shoud surely advantage the side who offence was committed against.

 

 

[TIL 1010 4,722]

[quote user="nutty nigel"]

It''s difficult to find a fair way to compensate the side who have the goalscoring opportunity denied. The player get''s sent off so I guess the severity of the punishment depends on what stage of the game the offence was committed. The last minute could be a right result for the offenders while the first minute would be a disaster.

 

I remember when we played Stockport in our last regular game of the play-off season. The Stockport keeper Dibble came charging out the area and took out Mark Rivers I think it was. It was deemed as a goalscoring opportunity so we got a free kick and Dibble was sent off. The free kick didn''t come to anything but we had a man advantage for 88 minutes and won comfortably. Stockport manager Carlton Palmer was rightly furious with Dibble for his actions. The opposite of this would be if the score was 0-0 and it happened in the last minute. Dibble could well have been a hero depending what was on the result of the game.

 

But imagine if we played Cardiff then QPR in the last 2 games of the season. The Cardiff game is 0-0 in the last minute when Elliott Ward denies Bellamy a clear goalscoring opportunity. Ward is sent off and ther free kick comes to nothing. The game ends 0-0 but we face QPR without our best defender because of Wards red against Cardiff. QPR take advantage of the situation and beat us pipping Cardiff to the title by one point.

 

Now I don''t know the answer to this. But in such cases the penalty paid shoud surely advantage the side who offence was committed against.

 

 

[/quote]

Now there''s a first......Weather vane Nutty not knowing the answer to something.[:P]