+-

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Stats ezBlock

Members
Total Members: 953
Latest: Yorksref
New This Month: 21
New This Week: 3
New Today: 1
Stats
Total Posts: 75107
Total Topics: 5527
Most Online Today: 153
Most Online Ever: 17046
(Mon 29 Mar 2021 19:08)
Users Online
Members: 8
Guests: 102
Total: 110

Author Topic: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend  (Read 1130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Matt

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #15 on: Sun 30 Sep 2018 21:22 »
If I could remember the whole play I'd be able to be specific but

If an attacker is in an offside position to which the defender has to play the ball or risk a goal being scored, then it would be a fair review that the offside attacker is indeed affecting the game. Think Kane and Lovren (LIV V THU 03/02/18.)

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #16 on: Mon 01 Oct 2018 22:28 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game.

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.

QuoCob

  • RTR Veterans
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 464
  • Gender: Male
  • L5/Ageing but still active...
  • Location: Hampshire
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #17 on: Tue 02 Oct 2018 08:16 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for the attackers and one for the defenders?

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”  Laurence Binyon

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #18 on: Tue 02 Oct 2018 15:30 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for the attackers and one for the defenders?

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.

Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.

The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is doesn't gain any profit.

The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect the game isn't really of relevance.

QuoCob

  • RTR Veterans
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 464
  • Gender: Male
  • L5/Ageing but still active...
  • Location: Hampshire
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #19 on: Tue 02 Oct 2018 16:48 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for the attackers and one for the defenders?

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.

Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.

The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is doesn't gain any profit.

The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect the game isn't really of relevance.

You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”  Laurence Binyon

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #20 on: Tue 02 Oct 2018 17:03 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for the attackers and one for the defenders?

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.

Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.

The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is doesn't gain any profit.

The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect the game isn't really of relevance.

You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.

Well, actually I was.

But what you are arguing for would be a radical change where goals are disallowed because a player was left completely unmarked on the left wing when there were two defenders on the opposite wing who weren't in a position to affect the play.

It sounds completely unworkable - so long as you don't put any defender near the opposition's best player then you can claim they're offside every time they get the ball! I fail to see how it would improve the game at all or make officiating any easier.

QuoCob

  • RTR Veterans
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 464
  • Gender: Male
  • L5/Ageing but still active...
  • Location: Hampshire
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #21 on: Tue 02 Oct 2018 17:40 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for the attackers and one for the defenders?

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.

Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.

The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is doesn't gain any profit.

The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect the game isn't really of relevance.

You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.

Well, actually I was.

But what you are arguing for would be a radical change where goals are disallowed because a player was left completely unmarked on the left wing when there were two defenders on the opposite wing who weren't in a position to affect the play.

It sounds completely unworkable - so long as you don't put any defender near the opposition's best player then you can claim they're offside every time they get the ball! I fail to see how it would improve the game at all or make officiating any easier.

I am not arguing, and agree that it would be a radical change and a nightmare for officials to enforce/adjudicate.
I'm just demonstrating in this case how inequitable the Laws are and wondering why attackers and defenders aren't treated similarly within Law 11.
“They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old:
Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We will remember them.”  Laurence Binyon

Readingfan

  • RTR Veterans
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2,443
    • View Profile
Re: Liverpool v Chelsea - Kevin Friend
« Reply #22 on: Tue 02 Oct 2018 18:56 »
Is it now time we went back to the "daylight" reference for offsides? Plus as has been mentioned we have in this instance 2 Chelsea players definitely in "offside" positions and another VAR will decide they are interfering with the defenders.

I'm pretty sure the Law on offside was always much clearer than it is now, it's about as clear as mud these days! Far too many permutations, imo, for an AR to have to consider, in the split second they have to make a decision, beyond the simple is he is an offside position, yes or no, especially given the speed the game is played at these days!

I didn’t like the old system much. People being in offside positions that were having no impact on the game were being unfairly penalised. I remember the 1999 fa cup semi final when Roy Keane’s goal was ruled out because Dwight Yorke was in an offside position but had had no impact on the game. Could have cost United the treble that year!

Similar to something I said on this board in it's previous guise that is current:
That defenders on the opposite side of the field of play being deemed to have played the attacker onside when they also have had no impact on the game?   
Should that also be allowed/disallowed?

I think you sometimes have to consider the spirit behind the law.

The principle of the offside law seems to be to prevent a player from simply 'goal-hanging' for the entire match - I don't think it's to disallow goals because an attacking player on the opposite side of the pitch was slightly ahead of the second-lest defender.

This doesn't really work the other way round - i.e. no one would object to a goal being allowed because a defender was too deep but not in a position to affect the game. Why not, one Law for the attackers and one for the defenders?

The defensive equivalent in this is probably when a player has to leave the pitch due to injury etc. and in the spirit of the game it feels wrong for him to count as playing anyone onside, which I think comes into play once the ball is cleared towards the halfway line.

Most spectators want to see goals scored and chances created.

The offside law prevents an attacker being able to simply goal hang for 90 minutes and gain profit from it. An attacking player who is on the opposite side of the pitch to where the ball is doesn't gain any profit.

The question of whether or not a defender's position can affect the game isn't really of relevance.

You obviously weren't a defender.
If the attackers position/involvement in play has relevance then the defenders position/involvement should be treated likewise.

Well, actually I was.

But what you are arguing for would be a radical change where goals are disallowed because a player was left completely unmarked on the left wing when there were two defenders on the opposite wing who weren't in a position to affect the play.

It sounds completely unworkable - so long as you don't put any defender near the opposition's best player then you can claim they're offside every time they get the ball! I fail to see how it would improve the game at all or make officiating any easier.

I am not arguing, and agree that it would be a radical change and a nightmare for officials to enforce/adjudicate.
I'm just demonstrating in this case how inequitable the Laws are and wondering why attackers and defenders aren't treated similarly within Law 11.

In which case, the simplest explanation would seem to be that Law 11 was only introduced to prevent an attacker from constantly being allowed to stand three yards out for the entire game to score goals because it could diminish the spectacle of the game and would give excessive advantages.

If the attacking player in an offside position isn't affecting the game at all then the above factor is void and so the lawmakers do not penalise this.

An attacking player could equally argue that it's inequitable that a defender is allowed to stand in whatever position they want in their own half without them committing an offence. Fundamentally, the existence of the offside law benefits defenders more than it does attackers, even if the recent changes have limited that advantage a bit compared to before.