craigkillie Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 From memory is says in law 11 that in the opinion of the referee player has to be seeking to gain an advantage to be offside. Goodwillie makes no attempt to play the ball and ducks out the way so not seeking to gain an advantange by blocking the view of the keeper. That would a deliberate attempt to gain an advantage by being in an offside position. You're making up rules to suit yourself here. "Gaining an advantage" is one of three reasons why a player can be given offside. It has the very specific definition of a player playing a ball which has rebounded to him off the woodwork or via a goalkeeper's save. In this respect, you are right to say that Goodwillie did not gain an advantage. However, one of the other reasons a player can be given offside is if he is "interfering with an opponent", and I posted part of that definition above. Goodwillie was "clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision" and should have been given offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberDon Posted November 25, 2014 Share Posted November 25, 2014 You're making up rules to suit yourself here. "Gaining an advantage" is one of three reasons why a player can be given offside. It has the very specific definition of a player playing a ball which has rebounded to him off the woodwork or via a goalkeeper's save. In this respect, you are right to say that Goodwillie did not gain an advantage. However, one of the other reasons a player can be given offside is if he is "interfering with an opponent", and I posted part of that definition above. Goodwillie was "clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision" and should have been given offside. Goodwillie wasn't obstructing Gallaghers line of vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Goodwillie wasn't obstructing Gallaghers line of vision. Paul Gallacher said he was, and I'm pretty sure Paul Gallacher has a better idea of what he can see in front of him than you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Goodwillie wasn't obstructing Gallaghers line of vision. He was standing in front of him and the ball went over his head. If that's not obstructing someone's vision then I'm not sure what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shootingboots Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 So if you stood in an offside position in front of the keeper to block his view at a direct free kick You wouldn't be flagged offside? I never knew that. Why don't more players do it? This actually happened in the Hull v Spurs game on Sunday afternoon for a freekick which Tottenham scored from. Was watching monday Night Football and they had a debate about it, Howard Webb agreed that the goal should have stood. (Probably due to supporting the referees decision mind you.) The other two disagreed with him. It's a stupid rule that's too open to interpretation. Anyway it balanced out the stupid decision to chop off Rooney's goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 He was standing in front of him and the ball went over his head. If that's not obstructing someone's vision then I'm not sure what is. The ball was curled in at a different angle and at no point can Gallacher not see the ball because of Goodwillie. If he isn't in that position then Gallacher probably is able to catch it however. I'm really not sure there is an obvious decision in this call and we got a bit of luck in scoring directly after that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suspect Device Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/02/36/01/11/27_06_2014_new--lawsofthegameweben_neutral.pdf Pages 35 and from 108. Seems a few folk don't really know the rules and interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Genuinely couldn't give a balls whether he was offside or not. 3 points, roond yi. If the reverse happens to Aberdeen this season, toys will be straight out the pram from me, tears, snotters, the lot. Leave your impartiality at the door - this is how Football works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberDon Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Paul Gallacher said he was, and I'm pretty sure Paul Gallacher has a better idea of what he can see in front of him than you do. Of course he would say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberDon Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 He was standing in front of him and the ball went over his head. If that's not obstructing someone's vision then I'm not sure what is. Over his head, exactly. At no point was Goodwillie directly between Gallagher's line of sight and the ball. He didn't come out and catch the ball because he didn't know whether Goodwillie would be flagged offside if he did go for the ball, this 'line of sight' shite is a load of bollocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigkillie Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 It only went over his head because he ducked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AberDon Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 It only went over his head because he ducked. He's 12 yards away and shorter than Gallagher, the ball was dropping the whole way and cleared Goodwillie's head when he moved it down maybe a couple of inches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted November 26, 2014 Share Posted November 26, 2014 Of course he would say that. And of course you would say the opposite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePonderer Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 The funny thing is (for those suggesting a standing area) that it was originally a standing area that was demolished quite recently and turned into the Bing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.