Jump to content

Some people argue about the offside rule


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#16
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

 

I still don't believe for a second that Royer was anywhere close to Guzan's line of sight or impacted his save attempt at the time of the shot, but the BWP disallowed goal was correct. Muyl was dead smack in front of Guzan when the shot was taken

 

9VcLl3j.jpg

In front? He is 8 yards away. Couldn't even give Guzan COVID if he wanted to, he is so properly socially distanced. Also can you explain to me how could Guzan jump if he didn't even see the ball? Because he could see the ball, that's why, Guzan is not some magician. This goal should have stood 100%. Guzan and Atlanta got bailed out.



#17
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

"The whole point of the modification to offsides rule is to have more goals. If the guy who scores is not offsides, unless someone clearly next to GK and completely prevents GK from saving you don't need to look for slightest traffic around him and disallow the goal. "

The first sentence is at least an exaggeration if not conjecture. The second is just not accurate. The standard for offside in the rules is most definitely not "completely prevents the GK from saving".

Since you have stated above is inaccurate, looks like you know exactly what the standard is for "interfering with play". You have anything more than your opinion to justify your words?



#18
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,001 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid

Since you have stated above is inaccurate, looks like you know exactly what the standard is for "interfering with play". You have anything more than your opinion to justify your words?

 

I've already quoted from the rules a few posts above, and stated that precisely because there is not a clear standard, the situation can be called either way. I haven't even said what my opinion is in this scenario, just that the ref should have at least viewed it himself (again, as recommended by the rules, per my earlier mssage)! If your argument was "Royer is not clearly obstructing Guzan's vision," I'd agree that your argument is reasonable. Although, again, others may disagree, and make a decent argument the other way.

 

Unfortunately, your argument was "no one is offside unless they completely block the keeper from seeing" and it has now apparently evolved into "AND they also have to be right next to the keeper", judging by your comment that Muyl is not blocking Guzan's vision in the snapshot above.

 

Anyway, made my point, don't think arguing it further with you would result in anything productive.



#19
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,285 posts
  • Location:NJ
  • Supports:New York Red Bulls, Arsenal

In front? He is 8 yards away. Couldn't even give Guzan COVID if he wanted to, he is so properly socially distanced. Also can you explain to me how could Guzan jump if he didn't even see the ball? Because he could see the ball, that's why, Guzan is not some magician. This goal should have stood 100%. Guzan and Atlanta got bailed out.

You can be in front of someone AND not be right next to them. Its not like things become less opaque as they get further away. Watch the replay. Guzman dives, but after the balls reaches Muyl.

#20
iced1776

iced1776

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,626 posts
  • Supports:NY Red Bulls, FC Barcelona

In front? He is 8 yards away. Couldn't even give Guzan COVID if he wanted to, he is so properly socially distanced. Also can you explain to me how could Guzan jump if he didn't even see the ball? Because he could see the ball, that's why, Guzan is not some magician. This goal should have stood 100%. Guzan and Atlanta got bailed out.

 

You're still blocking line of sight whether you're 1 or 8 yards away, as the saying goes Muyl makes a better door than a window. The letter of the law is clear on that one, if you're blocking line of sight its offside.



#21
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

 

I've already quoted from the rules a few posts above, and stated that precisely because there is not a clear standard, the situation can be called either way. I haven't even said what my opinion is in this scenario, just that the ref should have at least viewed it himself (again, as recommended by the rules, per my earlier mssage)! If your argument was "Royer is not clearly obstructing Guzan's vision," I'd agree that your argument is reasonable. Although, again, others may disagree, and make a decent argument the other way.

 

Unfortunately, your argument was "no one is offside unless they completely block the keeper from seeing" and it has now apparently evolved into "AND they also have to be right next to the keeper", judging by your comment that Muyl is not blocking Guzan's vision in the snapshot above.

 

Anyway, made my point, don't think arguing it further with you would result in anything productive.

You are right, I stated my opinion based on what I observed in many the years of watching soccer in multiple Leagues as the rule is open to interpretation. Note that the rule does not even say interfering with the GK, but with the play. I have not seen many instances where a player 8 yards or more away from GK is called for interfering with the play blinding him. I have seen this called plenty of times when a player is pretty much right next to GK blocking him completely.

 

So, I stated my opinion, and you chose to attack every sentence I made, including the one where passive offside was not called to have more goals, without providing any evidence to the contrary. It's fine if you disagree, but you seemed pretty aggressive attacking my opinion, so I would expect to see some sort of evidence that I am way off here. You provided none. You just stated your own interpretation of the rule, which hardly justifies the attack on mine.



#22
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

You can be in front of someone AND not be right next to them. Its not like things become less opaque as they get further away. Watch the replay. Guzman dives, but after the balls reaches Muyl.

Guzan has seen his better days, but even at his best he could not react that quickly.



#23
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

 

You're still blocking line of sight whether you're 1 or 8 yards away, as the saying goes Muyl makes a better door than a window. The letter of the law is clear on that one, if you're blocking line of sight its offside.

Here is the actual rule: interfering with the play by "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision". It cannot be just obstruction, it has to be "clear obstruction". I don't see how someone "clearly obstructed" still sees well enough to dive to block, or how one can obstruct from 8 yards away for that matter. Especially when call on the field was the goal, and you would have to overturn that call. Again, this is open to interpretation, and is an opinion, but I haven't seen many examples aside from the Atlanta match where someone 8 or more yards away was called offsides for clear obstruction and goal overturned. I have seen it only when a player was next to GK "clearly" blocking him.



#24
JBigjake54

JBigjake54

    Amicus Curiae

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,866 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars

Couldn't even give Guzan COVID if he wanted to.


Have to admit, this is funny.

We are good enough to beat the best teams, and bad enough to lose to the worst teams. 


#25
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,001 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid

so I would expect to see some sort of evidence that I am way off here. You provided none. You just stated your own interpretation of the rule, which hardly justifies the attack on mine.

I said I'd quoted the relevant rules a few posts earlier. If you're unable to scroll up or click back or read, that's your problem, not mine.

You're free to have an opinion, sure, but stating it as a universally accepted truth is a bit ludicrous, especially when 3 of the the next 3 posts disagree with your interpretation.

#26
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

I said I'd quoted the relevant rules a few posts earlier. If you're unable to scroll up or click back or read, that's your problem, not mine.

You're free to have an opinion, sure, but stating it as a universally accepted truth is a bit ludicrous, especially when 3 of the the next 3 posts disagree with your interpretation.

You didn't quote anything relevant actually. You put up rules, which are open to interpretation, then an opinion of how you interpreted them. I stated a different opinion. This was stated no more as "universal truth" than any other opinion on this board. It was my observation from playing and watching multiple Leagues. The ludicrous part was that you proceeded to aggressively attack every sentence I wrote as being inaccurate of conjecture, and when pressed to show some evidence, you came up flat chested and empty as RBA,  pointing out to your statement of rules, which you said yourself was open to interpretation.

 

Then, in some desperate attempt to prove your point and invalidate mine, you mention 3 posts after mine which disagreed, even though you know there are others who agree also in this thread, and even refs from Saturday's game, making this attempt simply worthless. The bottom line is that we disagree on this, and so be it, there is no need for your baseless attacks. If you come across other games, where a goal is overturned when a guy is 8 or more yards away from the GK,  "clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision", let me know.



#27
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,001 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid
https://www.beinspor...oal-var/1141427

Almost identical to Royer's situation, waved off

#28
Brian.MLS

Brian.MLS

    RIP MetroStars

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,750 posts
  • Supports:Metro, RBNYII, RBNY U23s, USMNT

https://www.beinspor...oal-var/1141427

Almost identical to Royer's situation, waved off


Not even close. Guzan dove and reached out in the right direction the moment Clark touched the ball, which is why the two most "experienced" refs in MLS let it stand.

In this link the GK paused due to the passive offside which clearly impacted the goal.
2013, 2015 & 2018 Supporters Shield Winners
 
@CurseofCaricola

#29
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,001 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid

Not even close. Guzan dove and reached out in the right direction the moment Clark touched the ball, which is why the two most "experienced" refs in MLS let it stand.

Just one. Marrufo didn't see replays.

And I did say "almost", it's hard to find exact replicas of situations like this. :)

#30
Borats

Borats

    First Team

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 774 posts
  • Supports:NY/NJ Metrostars

https://www.beinspor...oal-var/1141427

Almost identical to Royer's situation, waved off

This is a good example to look at. The big difference is though the guy, like Royer, is also in the box close to GK, he was able to barely jump away last instance from the shot hitting him. That one I think is close. I don't know if I would overrule it, but that last instance jump to allow the ball to continue is a bit suspect. If the ball flew next to him, like in case of Royer, I think ref allows is. Anyway, enjoyable play to review.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users