Optimistic Nut 9 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 On MOTD 2, the presenter said that because van Nistelrooy didn't get the ball originally, it didn't count as offside. Last season when Kluivert scored an almost identical goal at Anfield there was uproar. Typical example of favouritism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordiesned 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 Motson made a meal of trying to explain the rules last night on MOTD. Am I the only one who doesn't find this confusing? He wasn't interfering during the 1st phase of the attack, therefore onside, therefore perfectly good goal. Simple! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 9 Posted October 2, 2005 Author Share Posted October 2, 2005 But one of the bylaws is "If he's gaining an unfair advantage by being in an offside position, it's offside". If being 2 yards infront of Goma isn't an unfair advantage, then I don't know what is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakermaker 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 funnier still,lee trundle at swansea,ball rolled towards him,but he realised he was offside if he touched the ball,stood over it for about 6 yards,guided it over the line,and some would say,impeded a defender trying to clear it,ref allowed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 But one of the bylaws is "If he's gaining an unfair advantage by being in an offside position, it's offside". If being 2 yards infront of Goma isn't an unfair advantage, then I don't know what is! 42089[/snapback] But surely if you're in an offside position, you're always going to be gaining an unfair advantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 9 Posted October 2, 2005 Author Share Posted October 2, 2005 Not really. van Nistelrooy could have walked into an onside position. He didn't. He continued to run towards the goal giving him a scoring opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shakermaker 0 Posted October 2, 2005 Share Posted October 2, 2005 But one of the bylaws is "If he's gaining an unfair advantage by being in an offside position, it's offside". If being 2 yards infront of Goma isn't an unfair advantage, then I don't know what is! 42089[/snapback] But surely if you're in an offside position, you're always going to be gaining an unfair advantage? 42098[/snapback] cloughs law "if your not interfeering with play,your not on the f*****g pitch" its where the offside law falls down.if a forward is in an offside position the defenders push up to keep him there,hence he has interfered with play. easy ways to solve it.a player is deemed offside if in an offside position(would make the game cack)or a player is only offside if he touches the ball whilst in an offside position,at least then everyone knows wher they stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Van Nistelstroodle gained an advantage from his position as he had a head start on the CH's. Therefore he was offside. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34848 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Van Nistelstroodle gained an advantage from his position as he had a head start on the CH's. Therefore he was offside. Again. 42134[/snapback] Agreed. They've fucked a very simple law up by trying to be clever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Van Nistelstroodle gained an advantage from his position as he had a head start on the CH's. Therefore he was offside. Again. 42134[/snapback] Agreed. They've fucked a very simple law up by trying to be clever. 42137[/snapback] Nail-on-heed. Definitely offside, tho can't have any complaints of the linesman as you cant expect them to have their crystal balls out once they've made the first judgement call (which in this case was correct as he was walking backwards at first.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 As an aside, anyone think Fulham would have got that penalty at Old Trafford if roles were reversed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34848 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Van Nistelstroodle gained an advantage from his position as he had a head start on the CH's. Therefore he was offside. Again. 42134[/snapback] Agreed. They've fucked a very simple law up by trying to be clever. 42137[/snapback] Nail-on-heed. Definitely offside, tho can't have any complaints of the linesman as you cant expect them to have their crystal balls out once they've made the first judgement call (which in this case was correct as he was walking backwards at first.) 42187[/snapback] Yup. They've taken what was previously a black and white decision (mistakes notwithstanding) and added an element of interpretation to it. A linesman's job is difficult enough just getting a standard offside correct without muddying things like they have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Fair play to the horse though, they've changed the law and he's exploiting it superbly. I reckon on nearly half his goals he starts from an offside position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Fair play to the horse though, they've changed the law and he's exploiting it superbly. I reckon on nearly half his goals he starts from an offside position. 42200[/snapback] Aye, not knocking that at all. To a top class six-yard box merchant in particular, the law change is an absolute Godsend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweetleftpeg 0 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Fair play to the horse though, they've changed the law and he's exploiting it superbly. I reckon on nearly half his goals he starts from an offside position. 42200[/snapback] Aye, not knocking that at all. To a top class six-yard box merchant in particular, the law change is an absolute Godsend. 42202[/snapback] He's still a cheating twat like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themags 0 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 As an aside, anyone think Fulham would have got that penalty at Old Trafford if roles were reversed? 42191[/snapback] no chance, i said when i saw it, thats not a penalty why is it these days player can win a foul? eh wtf he wasnt fouled he ran in to the defenders and went down i blame andy gray he started this whole players winning fouls bullshit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimbo 133 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Van Nistelstroodle gained an advantage from his position as he had a head start on the CH's. Therefore he was offside. Again. 42134[/snapback] Agreed. They've fucked a very simple law up by trying to be clever. 42137[/snapback] Nail-on-heed. Definitely offside, tho can't have any complaints of the linesman as you cant expect them to have their crystal balls out once they've made the first judgement call (which in this case was correct as he was walking backwards at first.) 42187[/snapback] Yup. They've taken what was previously a black and white decision (mistakes notwithstanding) and added an element of interpretation to it. A linesman's job is difficult enough just getting a standard offside correct without muddying things like they have. 42199[/snapback] Agreed, these rules on interpretation are stupid, a player should simply be offside or not, non of this active or inactive horseshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sima Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 What Jimbo said. Put the law back to the way it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueStar 0 Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 He made my fantasy team simply because Man U can get away with such things with relative ease, and anyone who takes penalties for those cheating buggers is a shoe in for lots of tasty goal pie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 9 Posted October 3, 2005 Author Share Posted October 3, 2005 (edited) Fair play to the horse though, they've changed the law and he's exploiting it superbly. I reckon on nearly half his goals he starts from an offside position. 42200[/snapback] Problem is, he was still breaking the "gaining an unfair advantage" law. Exactly like when everyone in the press were saying Kluivert's against Liverpool last season shouldn't have stood. Edited October 3, 2005 by Optimistic Nut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 Fair play to the horse though, they've changed the law and he's exploiting it superbly. I reckon on nearly half his goals he starts from an offside position. 42200[/snapback] Problem is, he was still breaking the "gaining an unfair advantage" law. Exactly like when everyone in the press were saying Kluivert's against Liverpool last season shouldn't have stood. 42671[/snapback] Am I right in thinking the law hasn't changed, but the interpretation on 'gaining an unfair advantage' has? It seems to make an already difficult job nigh on impossible for the ref's assistants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyluke 1 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 You know there's something wrong when even heterosexual men can't explain the offside rule properly. The new rules are a load of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatful Of Hollow 0 Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 I remember a goal not so long ago which proved that this "not interferring with play" malarky is crap. There was a back pass played to the keeper which the forward charged down, the keeper cleared it up the pitch and it ran through to the opposition keeper, he cleared the ball downfield The striker who charged down the back pass was still near the opposition penalty area, a good 20 yards beyond the last defender, but he wasn't offside because he wasn't "interferring" with play. The ball came off a defender and ran through to the forward, who wasn't offside because the ball came off an opposition player. He scored as a result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut 9 Posted October 4, 2005 Author Share Posted October 4, 2005 I can remember in the 1996-7 season a game at St James' against Arsenal. Asprilla was walking from an offside position (he must have been at least 15 yards beyond the last man), and the ball was played over the top for Shearer to chase with Adams. The ball went near Tino, who jumped over the ball so not to touch it, and Shearer raced onto it and was brought down by Adams who was sent-off. I couldn't understand how on earth the referee felt Tino wasn't interfering with play when both Shearer & Adams literally had to round around him to get to the ball! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted October 4, 2005 Share Posted October 4, 2005 And Arsenal still won. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now