- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Thankfully it’s academic now but how the hell can Lescott not be interfering with play when he’s stood in front of Carson in an offside position and lifts his leg so the ball can go past him and into the net?
The argument is that if Lescott reached out and deflected the ball into the net, then Carson need not react because he can be confident that the referee would not give the goal.
Therefore Carson need not be distracted by Lescott and can concentrate on saving the shot if it is not deflected.
But I agree with you.
Surely the argument is that Carson’s view is restricted by Lescott being in an offside position thereby shortening his reaction time and should therefore be deemed as interfering with play.
That should be a factor of course. But whether Lescott is interfering with play or not is a matter of opinion rather than fact.
It seems that the referee thought that either Lescott was not interfering with play, or that Lescott was onside.
But he was not necessarily fully informed or correct. It’s another cause of controversy.
Lescott was 100% offside. Like Sammy said, it’s all academic now and that’s why the statement the refereeing body or whatever made won’t be scrutinised and was made to pacify and protect their officials. Most neutrals I’ve spoken to have said their goal shouldn’t have stood. It all happened very quickly and would’ve probably taken a top drawer linesman, sorry referee’s assistant, to spot it in the first place. Even Carson and our defenders didn’t complain.
That should be a factor of course. But whether Lescott is interfering with play or not is a matter of opinion rather than fact.It seems that the referee thought that either Lescott was not interfering with play, or that Lescott was onside.
But he was not necessarily fully informed or correct. It’s another cause of controversy.
It shouldn’t be a matter of opinion at all. The law should be unambiguous and that’s where the problems lies.
I don’t know if the linesman flagged it offside, I assume he didn’t, but he should have done since it was obvious Lescott was in an offside position. Since Lescott lifted his leg to let the ball go past he was clearly interfering with play so the goal should have been disallowed.
The point I have here is that the so called experts are saying the goal should have stood as Lescott wasn’t interfering with play which in my opinion is demonstrably incorrect.The offside law is:
“A player in an offside position is only penalised 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 by:interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position”FIFA also add that:
“interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i.e. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside positionLooking at those definitions then Lescott wasn’t offside because at the moment the ball was kicked by Nasri, Lescott wasn’t obstructing Carson’s line of vision. That seems to be the explanation that ITV said the ref’s group had given along with him not touching the ball.
So if you stick rigidly to that wording then you can justify not giving an offside
BUT
You don’t have to touch the ball just “play” it & that can mean attempting to kick it & missing. Can jumping out of the way at the last second when you are obstructing the path/view of the ball count as playing it coz a dummy can be seen as playing it. In my opinion it is
Also this “at the moment the ball is kicked” if taken literally wouldn’t apply to half the offside decisions correctly given. Take for example of an attacker is trying to get back from an offside position & his team mate hoofs the ball over the top of the defence. At that moment, by the above definition he is not committing an offside offence. But after the ball has bounced, he takes a look, thinks he can put some pressure on the keeper (who is coming out to punt it back upfield) & decides to chase after the ball, the keeper has to put a sprint on & due to pressure from this attacker has to just kick it out of play. He’d then get signalled for offside & the assistant would be correct
But if you go off what ITV said the ref’s group justified Lescott not being given offside for then the above example shouldn’t be eitherIn Sunday’s incident, Lescott is offside but committing no offence when the ball is kicked. However as he is in that offside position he then moves across the flight of the ball & obstructs Carson’s view of it. Meaning he’s interfered with an opponent. For me the last second jump (essentially a dummy) means he plays the ball so he interferes with play & finally he’s gained an advantage coz if he hadn’t been stood there, he wouldn’t have been able to run the path he took, block the keeper’s view of the ball & make a last milli second jump out of the way.
Taking Latics out of the equation, if I was on the line & that exact same incident happened I would alert the ref that there was a fella offside who although he didn’t touch the ball looked like he may have been interfering with play & it sthen up to the ref to decide whether they were as they would have a better position to decide.
In fairness to the assistant on Sunday, If I’m on an NPL game, the only way I can do that is by sticking my flag up but in Sunday’s game they were mic’d up so the chances are that the assistant did say something but the ref decided Lescott wasn’t interfering with playIMO though if ITV reported exactly what the ref’s group said then it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because they are not the only times when an offside can be given
Sorry for boring ya!! :P
remember the quote from bill shankley, “if your not interfering with play, you shouldn’t be on the fekking pitch ” :)
Thanks for the detailed response TL. I was hoping you’d chirp in and glad you also support the claim that it should have been given offside.
The offside law is:
“A player in an offside position is only penalised 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 by:interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position”FIFA also add that:
“interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i.e. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside positionLooking at those definitions then Lescott wasn’t offside because at the moment the ball was kicked by Nasri, Lescott wasn’t obstructing Carson’s line of vision. That seems to be the explanation that ITV said the ref’s group had given along with him not touching the ball.
So if you stick rigidly to that wording then you can justify not giving an offside
BUT
You don’t have to touch the ball just “play” it & that can mean attempting to kick it & missing. Can jumping out of the way at the last second when you are obstructing the path/view of the ball count as playing it coz a dummy can be seen as playing it. In my opinion it is
Also this “at the moment the ball is kicked” if taken literally wouldn’t apply to half the offside decisions correctly given. Take for example of an attacker is trying to get back from an offside position & his team mate hoofs the ball over the top of the defence. At that moment, by the above definition he is not committing an offside offence. But after the ball has bounced, he takes a look, thinks he can put some pressure on the keeper (who is coming out to punt it back upfield) & decides to chase after the ball, the keeper has to put a sprint on & due to pressure from this attacker has to just kick it out of play. He’d then get signalled for offside & the assistant would be correct
But if you go off what ITV said the ref’s group justified Lescott not being given offside for then the above example shouldn’t be eitherIn Sunday’s incident, Lescott is offside but committing no offence when the ball is kicked. However as he is in that offside position he then moves across the flight of the ball & obstructs Carson’s view of it. Meaning he’s interfered with an opponent. For me the last second jump (essentially a dummy) means he plays the ball so he interferes with play & finally he’s gained an advantage coz if he hadn’t been stood there, he wouldn’t have been able to run the path he took, block the keeper’s view of the ball & make a last milli second jump out of the way.
Taking Latics out of the equation, if I was on the line & that exact same incident happened I would alert the ref that there was a fella offside who although he didn’t touch the ball looked like he may have been interfering with play & it sthen up to the ref to decide whether they were as they would have a better position to decide.
In fairness to the assistant on Sunday, If I’m on an NPL game, the only way I can do that is by sticking my flag up but in Sunday’s game they were mic’d up so the chances are that the assistant did say something but the ref decided Lescott wasn’t interfering with playIMO though if ITV reported exactly what the ref’s group said then it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because they are not the only times when an offside can be given
Sorry for boring ya!! :P
If you don’t mind I’ll not read that just now – I’m going away in July and I’ll need something to read by the pool.
The offside law is:
“A player in an offside position is only penalised 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 by:interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position”FIFA also add that:
“interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i.e. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside positionLooking at those definitions then Lescott wasn’t offside because at the moment the ball was kicked by Nasri, Lescott wasn’t obstructing Carson’s line of vision. That seems to be the explanation that ITV said the ref’s group had given along with him not touching the ball.
So if you stick rigidly to that wording then you can justify not giving an offside
BUT
You don’t have to touch the ball just “play” it & that can mean attempting to kick it & missing. Can jumping out of the way at the last second when you are obstructing the path/view of the ball count as playing it coz a dummy can be seen as playing it. In my opinion it is
Also this “at the moment the ball is kicked” if taken literally wouldn’t apply to half the offside decisions correctly given. Take for example of an attacker is trying to get back from an offside position & his team mate hoofs the ball over the top of the defence. At that moment, by the above definition he is not committing an offside offence. But after the ball has bounced, he takes a look, thinks he can put some pressure on the keeper (who is coming out to punt it back upfield) & decides to chase after the ball, the keeper has to put a sprint on & due to pressure from this attacker has to just kick it out of play. He’d then get signalled for offside & the assistant would be correct
But if you go off what ITV said the ref’s group justified Lescott not being given offside for then the above example shouldn’t be eitherIn Sunday’s incident, Lescott is offside but committing no offence when the ball is kicked. However as he is in that offside position he then moves across the flight of the ball & obstructs Carson’s view of it. Meaning he’s interfered with an opponent. For me the last second jump (essentially a dummy) means he plays the ball so he interferes with play & finally he’s gained an advantage coz if he hadn’t been stood there, he wouldn’t have been able to run the path he took, block the keeper’s view of the ball & make a last milli second jump out of the way.
Taking Latics out of the equation, if I was on the line & that exact same incident happened I would alert the ref that there was a fella offside who although he didn’t touch the ball looked like he may have been interfering with play & it sthen up to the ref to decide whether they were as they would have a better position to decide.
In fairness to the assistant on Sunday, If I’m on an NPL game, the only way I can do that is by sticking my flag up but in Sunday’s game they were mic’d up so the chances are that the assistant did say something but the ref decided Lescott wasn’t interfering with playIMO though if ITV reported exactly what the ref’s group said then it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny because they are not the only times when an offside can be given
Sorry for boring ya!! :P
If you don’t mind I’ll not read that just now – I’m going away in July and I’ll need something to read by the pool.[/quote]
I’ll spoil the ending for you; the ref got it wrong!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
