The Eggman

Sep 15 2011, 01:49 PM

findus

Sep 15 2011, 01:48 PM

Rightly chopped off, in my view, not that you'd have not found me screaming at the TV back then. You'll not find many United supporters agreeing with me, but a tonne of St Mirren fans. Refs likely split over it too. Aaaaand we're back to the main problem.

Well, the ref could've had a second chance to get the right decision. If he then confirmed his initial decision, fair enough.

What was the decision for, by the way?

The Eggman

Sep 15 2011, 01:48 PM

findus

Sep 15 2011, 01:45 PM

I planted that there for you anyhow, just to test your predictability. Tricks, monkey, do tricks!

That's not nice.

*Nicest Poster: Findus

Not that I voted for you, anyhow, bumface.

*With thanks to whatsthat

The Eggman

Sep 15 2011, 01:13 PM

findus

Sep 15 2011, 12:58 PM

My guess is that video replays haven't been and continue not to be brought in to the biggest sport on the planet to cover for its very inexact, interpretable rules, and therefore to cover for fallible referees trying to enforce these inexact, interpretable rules.

So instead we get refs slaughtered by the media and fans anyway, saying 'he should've seen that' or 'he should've been better positioned' or 'he clearly had a great angle, so he cheated' etc etc. And despite getting this slaughtering, refs keep coming back for more (apart from Frisk, who quit because of the abuse he got for a decision he wasn't given the chance to possibly correct) 'disrespect'.

Meanwhile, teams get victories and defeats they shouldn't have got, because the ref is slower than the players and has one pair of eyes and gets only one view at one real time speed.

Video evidence will come in, at least in a very basic form - probably the decisions on whether the ball crossed the line.

findus

Sep 15 2011, 02:02 PM

Gallacher clearly offside going by the rules of the time. If you're not interfering with play when standing on the line a foot from the path of the ball then I don't know when you're interfering with play, by them time rules.

The Eggman

Sep 15 2011, 04:26 PM

findus

Sep 15 2011, 02:02 PM

Gallacher clearly offside going by the rules of the time. If you're not interfering with play when standing on the line a foot from the path of the ball then I don't know when you're interfering with play, by them time rules.

How does he interfere with play? His being there made no difference to the defender, the defender being too far away.

He was only not looking to gain a goalscoring advantage by being offside, as his momentum took him past the keeper and onto the line.

Anyway, if video evidence had been available at the time, and United had appealed the decision, then the ref looked again and still decided it should be disallowed, then fair enough.

We're now into dead horse flogging territory, so can someone invoke Godwin's?

The Eggman

Sep 15 2011, 04:26 PM

We're now into dead horse flogging territory, so can someone invoke Godwin's?

whatsthatonyourback

Sep 15 2011, 04:51 PM

Did whether you were interfering with play or not even matter for offside in 1987?

He was totally f*cking offside anyway.

Art Vandelay

Sep 15 2011, 04:44 PM

Edit - curses. Beaten to it. Damned internet connection.

findus

Sep 15 2011, 05:09 PM

whatsthatonyourback

Sep 15 2011, 04:51 PM

Did whether you were interfering with play or not even matter for offside in 1987?

He was totally f*cking offside anyway.

I'm pretty sure it did otherwise wingers near the touchline would've been flagged a lot more than we remember (i.e. never).

Quote:

 

1978-1979: The off-side Law XI was rewritten: Preceded by the 1974 proposal by FA of Wales to International Board - removed any reference to ball touching or being played by an opponent. Penalising off-side is now to be judged at the moment that the ball is played by a team-mate. In the previous 1977-1978 Law XI, a player was not penalised if: "The ball last touched an opponent or was last played by him". The 1978-79 amendment below, introduces the important phrase: "at the moment the ball touches, or is played by, one of his team". Mere deflection of the ball by a defender no longer places an off-side opponent in an on-side position.

Law XI Off-Side

(1) A player is in an off-side position if he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than the ball, unless:

(a) he is in his own half of the field of play, or

(b) there are at least two of his opponents nearer their own goal-line than he is.

(2) A player shall only be declared off-side and penalised for being in an off-side position, if, at the moment the ball touches, or is played by, one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the Referee:

(a) interfering with play or with an opponent, or

(b) seeking to gain an advantage by being in that position.

(3) A player shall not be declared off-side by the Referee

(a) merely because of his being in an off-side position, or

(b) if he receives the ball, direct, from a goal-kick, a corner-kick, a throw-in, or when it has been dropped by the Referee.

(4) If a player is declared off-side, the Referee shall award an indirect free-kick, which shall be taken by a player of the opposing team from the place where the infringement occurred, unless the offence is committed by a player in his opponents' goal area, in which case, the free-kick shall be taken from a point anywhere within that half of the goal area in which the offence occurred.

1990-1991: Prior to the 1990-1991 season, players were deemed to be off-side if they were level with the second last defender or the last two defenders. A change in Law XI for season 1990-1991 now exempts players who are level with the second last or the last two defenders. This important new clause now gives the advantage to the attacking players and was as follows:

(b) he is not nearer to his opponents' goal-line than at least two of his opponents.

A second paragraph was added to the Law XI International Board Decision (IBD) 1:

2. A player who is level with the second last opponent or with the last two opponents is not in an off-side position.



1995-1996: The following two new terms were introduced into the off-side Law:

It is not an offence in itself to be in an off-side position.

A player shall only be penalised for being in an off-side position if, at the moment the ball touches, or is played by one of his team, he is in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play.

This clarified the understanding that it is not an offence for a player to be in an off-side position. The Referee can refrain from penalising if in the opinion of the Referee, the player concerned is not interfering with play, nor interfering with an opponent, nor seeking to gain an advantage. This clearly distinguishes between the off-side position and the infringement of being actively involved in play while in that position.

It is interesting to note also in 1995-1996, that the previous Law X1 Off-side phrase "seeking to gain an advantage by being in that position" was subtly changed to "gaining an advantage by being in that position".

The difference being, that a player only had to make a move (seeking) towards the ball to be penalised, whereas, the new phrase implies that an advantage has to be gained before a player is penalised.

whatsthatonyourback

Sep 15 2011, 04:51 PM

Did whether you were interfering with play or not even matter for offside in 1987?

He was totally f*cking offside anyway.

findus

Sep 15 2011, 04:37 PM

He is interfering with play by first being the player that pulls the defender and keeper towards him, by getting a clip on teh ball, and then by being located on the line in an offside position when the shot whizzes in close to him - you could argue he's blocking the defender from making an attempt to block the shot on the line too. Even with today's more lenient offside rule, I would be fking annoyed if a goal like that against United wasn't chopped off. Only someone like Hitler could think otherwise.

The Eggman

Sep 15 2011, 09:33 PM

findus

Sep 15 2011, 04:37 PM

He is interfering with play by first being the player that pulls the defender and keeper towards him, by getting a clip on teh ball, and then by being located on the line in an offside position when the shot whizzes in close to him - you could argue he's blocking the defender from making an attempt to block the shot on the line too. Even with today's more lenient offside rule, I would be fking annoyed if a goal like that against United wasn't chopped off. Only someone like Hitler could think otherwise.

He's not offside when the cross comes in - only when Ferguson takes the shot. By which time, he is so befuddled that he's thinking 'eh, wtf'. And he doesn't come close to stopping the defender from getting across to Ferguson's shot, as the defender is yards away.

Adolf would've had Kenny Hope (or was it Dougie Hope) shot.

Skeletor

Sep 15 2011, 10:39 PM

Phew, thank f*ck for that. So - United vs Rangers eh? What a game. What did yous all make of that penalty shout then?