Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Sports Forum

Sports Forum

  1. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    11 Jun '08 17:39
    Yeah.
    Well... what do you all think?

    Should a player, who's off the field (without the referees permission), terminate the attacking team being off-side?

    Personally, I've never heard of this rule 11 and it sounds very Catch 22ish to me.
  2. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    11 Jun '08 20:24
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Yeah.
    Well... what do you all think?

    Should a player, who's off the field (without the referees permission), terminate the attacking team being off-side?

    Personally, I've never heard of this rule 11 and it sounds very Catch 22ish to me.
    I wasn't convinced, until the point was made that, without this rule, a defender could simply step off the pitch to make someone offside, which would be daft.
  3. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    12 Jun '08 05:36
    Originally posted by Redmike
    I wasn't convinced, until the point was made that, without this rule, a defender could simply step off the pitch to make someone offside, which would be daft.
    Surely this is then a case of a generalised rule, rather than a rule that pin points the core problem, i.e. cheating?
  4. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    12 Jun '08 07:23
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Surely this is then a case of a generalised rule, rather than a rule that pin points the core problem, i.e. cheating?
    Not sure what you mean - who do you think was cheating?
  5. 12 Jun '08 08:56
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Surely this is then a case of a generalised rule, rather than a rule that pin points the core problem, i.e. cheating?
    Well, it seems to be a rule designed to prevent a deliberate action, which (possibly unintentionally) has also affected the case when the action is not deliberate. But it's still the rule.

    A point that seems to have been missed by every single commentator and pundit who watched the Netherlands v Italy game.
  6. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    12 Jun '08 13:31
    Originally posted by mtthw
    Well, it seems to be a rule designed to prevent a deliberate action, which (possibly unintentionally) has also affected the case when the action is not deliberate. But it's still the rule.

    A point that seems to have been missed by every single commentator and pundit who watched the Netherlands v Italy game.
    I guess the point is that the defender made absolutely no effort whatsoever to get back into play, but when felt that an injustice had been committed against him, he sprinted after the ref. The players obviously didn't know the rule themselves.

    Some football pundits should be shot. They give their "expert opinion" on how rules should be in their own opinion, rather than interpreting the rules as they stand now.

    A lot of flack that the refs get is due to uninformed pundits informing the uninformed public.

    I think the refs/linesmen have a very tough job (I'd nearly say impossible with regards the linos. How can you look 2 different places at once). Pundits label offside (especially) decisions as disgraceful, AFTER watching it 5 times from different angles in super slowmo with a line superimposed.

    In my opinion, pundits should have to make a snap decision (as the refs/linos do) before they've seen any replays. When their wrong decisions start accummulating, they might be prepared to give a little more leniency to the officials.

    Having said that, I don't think the number of incorrect decisions made by linos should be tolerated. I just think that pointing the finger at somebody who is being asked to do an impossible job isn't the most productive use of their public voice. Technology should be proposed time and again for enforcing the offside rule, or at least get 2 people to decide on offsides...1 to press a button the instant the ball is kicked, and the other to indicate when a player moves into an offside position.

    D
  7. 13 Jun '08 11:26
    Originally posted by Ragnorak

    I think the refs/linesmen have a very tough job (I'd nearly say impossible with regards the linos. How can you look 2 different places at once).
    Technology should be proposed time and again for enforcing the offside rule, or at least get 2 people to decide on offsides...1 to press a button the instant the ball is kicked, and the other to indicate when a player moves into an offside position.

    D[/b]
    I agree that refs and linesman have a very difficult job to do. However, they're their own worst enemies... they don't work as a team. It seems to me that linesmen even look to the ref before deciding which way to give a throw in???
    Judging offsides is not as difficult as you're making out... as long as the lino is in line with the last defender and has the ball in his peripheral vision, 9 times out of 10 he'll get the decision correct. As human's they're going to make mistakes like we all do, and for donkeys years players/managers//fans have had to put up with that, but it's all part of what makes football what it is, surely?
    That said, I do think that we can't ignore the technology that is now available to us, even using the 4th official sitting by a monitor would help in a lot of cases. Look at the Polish goal against Austria last night... lino makes a hash of it, 4th official should be able to look at his monitor and overule the decision...
  8. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    13 Jun '08 12:44
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    I guess the point is that the defender made absolutely no effort whatsoever to get back into play, but when felt that an injustice had been committed against him, he sprinted after the ref. The players obviously didn't know the rule themselves.

    Some football pundits should be shot. They give their "expert opinion" on how rules should be in their own op ...[text shortened]... is kicked, and the other to indicate when a player moves into an offside position.

    D
    Personally, I think it's a farce to consider a player lying on his back outside of the pitch as active.

    I don't think it was a wrong decision simply because the laws are so vague about this that both decisions are justifiable. I do think that the rules should be changed to clarify that this type of situations should be offside. It's clearly not in the spirit of the rule to have an injured player outside of the pitch to count for the purposes of the offside rule.
  9. Subscriber Crowley
    Not Aleister
    13 Jun '08 13:29
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Personally, I think it's a farce to consider a player lying on his back outside of the pitch as active.
    Perhaps football players should stop their theatrics like diving all over the place, writhing in pain and then going off for 'attention' and this wouldn't have happened.
  10. 13 Jun '08 14:17
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Perhaps football players should stop their theatrics like diving all over the place, writhing in pain and then going off for 'attention' and this wouldn't have happened.
    That's a fair point.

    If players could be trusted to play the game in the right spirit, there wouldn't be so many contentious decisions.

    I thought the ref's had been told at Euro 2008 to caution players for 'simulation'?
    Not seen it happen yet, but there has been plently of 'simulating' from what I've seen.
  11. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    13 Jun '08 14:28
    Originally posted by blade68
    That's a fair point.

    If players could be trusted to play the game in the right spirit, there wouldn't be so many contentious decisions.

    I thought the ref's had been told at Euro 2008 to caution players for 'simulation'?
    Not seen it happen yet, but there has been plently of 'simulating' from what I've seen.
    But in this case, there were no 'theatrics' - the guy got thumped by his own keeper and fell to the side of the goal, behind the goal line.
  12. Standard member Ragnorak
    For RHP addons...
    13 Jun '08 14:55
    Originally posted by Redmike
    But in this case, there were no 'theatrics' - the guy got thumped by his own keeper and fell to the side of the goal, behind the goal line.
    Do you think that it would have been the correct decision if he got thumped and landed in the field of play in an inactive position (ie: on the 18 yard box towards the corner flag away from the action) ?

    D
  13. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    13 Jun '08 14:56
    Originally posted by Crowley
    Perhaps football players should stop their theatrics like diving all over the place, writhing in pain and then going off for 'attention' and this wouldn't have happened.
    indeed. the 'hit' they get falling down to ground is 99 times out of 100 harder than the light brushing bumb which 'made them' fall. usually they're even holding a part of their body which wasn't even near the hit. I think all such deceits should be heavily penalized even after the game.

    in fight sports the guys receive full power kicks on legs without batting an eye. they don't even limp. it isn't until the hits accumulate that it starts to make a difference.

    not to say that fouls shouldn't be always caught, because they should, but I just wish they'd drop the girly theatrics. if the ref didn't see it, he's not going to blow the whistle no matter how high you jump. (I would guess they actually whistle easier if the victim is known not to dive.)

    the old german team was great because they never dove. no matter how hard they were hit, the guys just continued stubbornly through, and got a lot of very dangerous attacks due to that. nowadays the germans dive just like your average italian. I miss the old days.
  14. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    13 Jun '08 15:03 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Do you think that it would have been the correct decision if he got thumped and landed in the field of play in an inactive position (ie: on the 18 yard box towards the corner flag away from the action) ?

    D
    What if he got hit, landed outside of the pitch, right inside a passing train to Siberia?

    Alternatively, we can stick with the case in point and not muck about every single scenario we can image.
  15. Standard member wormwood
    If Theres Hell Below
    13 Jun '08 15:06
    Originally posted by Ragnorak
    Do you think that it would have been the correct decision if he got thumped and landed in the field of play in an inactive position (ie: on the 18 yard box towards the corner flag away from the action) ?

    D
    the 'inactive position' rule doesn't count for defenders, does it?