Jump to content

Some people argue about the offside rule


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1
JBigjake54

JBigjake54

    Amicus Curiae

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,872 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars

Royer was not in the immediate line of sight and he moved further away from Guzan and the goal mouth when the shot was taken.


I still think that his presence & movement affected Guzan.

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


#2
Voice of Reason II

Voice of Reason II

    Dir. of Football Operations

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,041 posts

I still think that his presence & movement affected Guzan.

As you wish, though watch where he was looking, it wasn't at Royer.



#3
JBigjake54

JBigjake54

    Amicus Curiae

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,872 posts
  • Supports:MetroStars

watch where he was looking, it wasn't at Royer.


Royer was probably in his central field of vision,
not even in his peripheral vision.
http://www.vision-an...sual-field.html

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


#4
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

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

As you wish, though watch where he was looking, it wasn't at Royer.

Was Guzan wearing horse blinders?



#5
iced1776

iced1776

    Dir. of Football Operations

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

Even Atlanta United's homer blog thinks it was the right call

 

https://www.dirtysou...ide-controversy

 

One interesting note they make is that Royer's position only matters at the time the ball is struck by Clark. You can argue Guzan had to reposition to get a clean view of the ball because of Royer while he was offside, but that doesn't matter here. Looking at the actual attempt Guzan makes, a full extension dive the second Clark hits it, I don't see how you can possibly say he would have done anything differently or been any more successful if Royer isn't there once the ball was struck



#6
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid

I don't see how you can possibly say he would have done anything differently or been any more successful if Royer isn't there once the ball was struck

Neither of these matters for whether an offside is called.

If I'm an Atlanta fan or player, I'd also be upset that the ref doesn't even review it himself. Think the call can go either way.

#7
iced1776

iced1776

    Dir. of Football Operations

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

Neither of these matters for whether an offside is called.

If I'm an Atlanta fan or player, I'd also be upset that the ref doesn't even review it himself. Think the call can go either way.

 

How do you figure? If the rule says that the offside player has to clearly impact the action of the goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper's action would have been the exact same if Royer was there or not, doesn't that support the call of no offside?



#8
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid

 
How do you figure? If the rule says that the offside player has to clearly impact the action of the goalkeeper

You're referring to "clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent". Irrelevant because Royer is not trying to play the ball.

Relevant part of the rule is "preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or"

"Clearly obstructing line of vision" is not strictly defined and can be argued either way, imho.

My biggest gripe would be the ref not even looking at it before letting the goal stand. Latest rule updates specifically say "For subjective decisions, e.g. intensity of a foul challenge, interference at offside, handball considerations, an on-field review (OFR) is appropriate"

Obviously I love that the goal stood but if the roles were reversed, many here would be saying exactly the opposite, especially because ATL had that BWP goal disallowed.

#9
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

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

Even Atlanta United's homer blog thinks it was the right call

 

https://www.dirtysou...ide-controversy

Even if, by the letter of the rule, it was the right call, that doesn't mean Guzan wasn't impacted by Royer's presence.  Good call, bad rule.

 

That said, F ATL UTD.



#10
Borats

Borats

    First Team

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

 

How do you figure? If the rule says that the offside player has to clearly impact the action of the goalkeeper, and the goalkeeper's action would have been the exact same if Royer was there or not, doesn't that support the call of no offside?

Guzan wasn't getting there for this one nor for the play-off goal. Both are good goals, too bad BWP's one didn't count by the garbage VAR ref.



#11
McSoccer

McSoccer

    Player/Manager

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

Guzan wasn't getting there for this one nor for the play-off goal.

You don't know that.



#12
Borats

Borats

    First Team

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

You don't know that.

I do, because he didn't get there. BWP drilled this one from about a penalty marker shooting to the right of Guzan, and Muyl wasn't anywhere near him - 8 yards away on the left, right next to another Atlanta player. Guzan reacted and jumped to the right. Great goal, BS call. Just like this one, but ref was reasonable.



#13
Borats

Borats

    First Team

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



Obviously I love that the goal stood but if the roles were reversed, many here would be saying exactly the opposite, especially because ATL had that BWP goal disallowed.

Only because of it, not especially. GKs play in traffic all the time. 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. That defeats the point of the rule. Guzan saw what's happing, that's why he actually jumped both times to save it, but couldn't.



#14
ivo

ivo

    Player/Manager

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Queens
  • Supports:NYRB, Real Madrid
"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".

#15
iced1776

iced1776

    Dir. of Football Operations

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

I do, because he didn't get there. BWP drilled this one from about a penalty marker shooting to the right of Guzan, and Muyl wasn't anywhere near him - 8 yards away on the left, right next to another Atlanta player. Guzan reacted and jumped to the right. Great goal, BS call. Just like this one, but ref was reasonable.

 

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






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users