Offside Rule. Again

Aliminator

did ya see Ricketts' goal that as disallowed for offside?
what's the difference between that and RVN's that started this whole debate.
i have to say i'm glad with the linesman's decision. two men were offside. in the split second that anyone could have contacted the ball he made a good decision.
but in hindsight it was against the new rules.

why didn't the same thing happen in the Utd game? or others (forgotten now) SIMPLY because equality and the same rulebook should govern the game. not just the whim of a ref. (they can be bribed remember. i'm suggesting they are. but they are not infallible)


views please.

i think this 'interpretation' thing should be scrapped. shame a petition wouldnt' do anything.

Thanx 4 The Fish

I agree, am actually finishing my reffing course today and we brought it up here, top refs in Ireland reckon it was a goal and that if they were on the line they would have given it, well that is according to the newest FIFA edict, but there may well be a new one tomorrow :rolleyes:

AthAnRi

Posted by Alminator
why didn't the same thing happen in the Utd game? or others (forgotten now) SIMPLY because equality and the same rulebook should govern the game. not just the whim of a ref. (they can be bribed remember. i'm suggesting they are. but they are not infallible)

This is what I mean. Typical, an ABU or a 'Non Utd Supporter' starts a thread about inconsistencies in refereeing decision and immediatly quotes a man utd incident and convieniently forgets the other incidents. It's no wonder people think that manu get a load of home town decisions with selective memory such as this.

mike65

The off-side law should be free of ambiguity. If anyone is off side they have to considered potentially active therefore any goal should be disallowed.

Mike.

mr_angry

Originally posted by AthAnRi
This is what I mean. Typical, an ABU or a 'Non Utd Supporter' starts a thread about inconsistencies in refereeing decision and immediatly quotes a man utd incident and convieniently forgets the other incidents. It's no wonder people think that manu get a load of home town decisions with selective memory such as this.

I don't think there was anything particularly "ABU" about the post. You have to acknowledge that it was Ruud Van Nistelrooy who exploited this rule, and hence brought it to everyone's attention. In that case, I think its fair to relate any current offside decision back to that.

In my opinion, offside should be a black & white rule - anyone even close to being involved in play and in an offside position means the game should be stopped. However, it appears that the current rules disagree with me, and so yesterday's goal should have stood.

MrJoeSoap

Originally posted by mr_angry
I don't think there was anything particularly "ABU" about the post. You have to acknowledge that it was Ruud Van Nistelrooy who exploited this rule, and hence brought it to everyone's attention. In that case, I think its fair to relate any current offside decision back to that.

I agree, as a Southampton fan.

The Muppet

I think they should do away with the offside rule all together like they have done in Hockey. It opens up the game totally and the better teams tend to benefit from the extra space it creates.

Dustaz

Originally posted by mike65
The off-side law should be free of ambiguity. If anyone is off side they have to considered potentially active therefore any goal should be disallowed.

I totally agree with this. The new interpretation is a farce and a major controvesy waiting to happen. Players are defintly interfering with play when standing in an offside position, particularly in the box. Both Henry and Ruud have been particularly guilty in exploiting this unfairly imo (regardless of what the lunatics in fifa are thinking)