Was it off side ?

[SwindonCanary 455]

Is there anyone out there that was sat in a position to see if our goal was on or off side ?

Coz'' that''s the main complaint from Middlesbough after the match.

[Barbie 10,000]

Ref''s assistant didnt give it. Looked marginal from where I sat in the Jarrold

[CJ 0]

Very hard to tell from TV replay and problem is a long loopy diagonal ball in which gives plenty of time between ball being kicked and players to move. The assistant was in the right place to judge and interesting that all three city forwards advanced beyond static staggered defense in a line.The reaction from the Middlesborough defence was interesting in that only no appeal by defender marking Holt as he ran passed him only when he passed to Jackson hoping a forward pass which it was not. There was an appeal by a central defender on Jackson as cross came in but he was onside thanks to aforementioned defender with Holt who was deeper.Overall a static defence not in a line made to look foolish by a well timed run by City attackers, Alan Hansen would tear em to shreds if he reviewed it!

[pete_norw 0]

[quote user="CJ"]Very hard to tell from TV replay and problem is a long loopy diagonal ball in which gives plenty of time between ball being kicked and players to move. The assistant was in the right place to judge and interesting that all three city forwards advanced beyond static staggered defense in a line.
The reaction from the Middlesborough defence was interesting in that only no appeal by defender marking Holt as he ran passed him only when he passed to Jackson hoping a forward pass which it was not. There was an appeal by a central defender on Jackson as cross came in but he was onside thanks to aforementioned defender with Holt who was deeper.
Overall a static defence not in a line made to look foolish by a well timed run by City attackers, Alan Hansen would tear em to shreds if he reviewed it!

[/quote]

On the other hand, who cares, its happened to us many times. take them while and when you can

[chicken 0]

@CJ: With this whole active / inactive thing it would have only been Holt that would have been offside because until he scored the goal Jackson was not interfering with play.

So whilst the ball was played in he wasn''t obstructing the keeper or any other player and then as soon as Holt cut it back he was onside and scored.

[a1canary 0]

It must have been close when you look at the clip of the goal but I think we were rightly given the benefit of the doubt given the deep diagonal cross from AM. Holt was ahead of Jackson so it would only have been him off side rather than Jackson. Their full back looked pretty deep too. It''s the kind of decision you expect to see go against you only to find out if was incorrect so i''ll take it this time!

[Bill 1,788]

The ludicrous off side rules make this debate meaningless.

The linesman should have the one task of ruling whether a player is ahead, level or behind the last defender. Introducing this ''intereing with play'' twaddle makes that decison meaningless, as he can only judge players in regard to the length of the pitch, he cannot judge how close (possible interference) a player is widthwise to another player so it turns this rule into a farce.

Bring back the rule where you are offside or you are not.