Van Persies disallowed goal on Sat

jimbling

Okay, I'm a bit confused on this one. I was watching the match and was nearly screaming at Andy Gray to shut his trap - how could Henry not be considered interfering in play????

I saw someone else make this point in another thread and PHB mentioned that he agreed but that that’s not the rules, by the rules it shouldn’t have been a goal. Can someone please explain to me the rule in question.

my view, and understanding -

In my eyes it was completely henrys fault that that goal was disallowed. I mean wtf was he thinking, he was a mile offside, and he turned around and started running towards the goal - he dragged a defender with him (although I doubt he would have gotton in front of VanPersie anyway), and obviously Czech would have been aware of him running in, and would be thinking about the possibility of VanPersie passing to Henry. HOW could this not be considered interfering with play??

Idiotic out of Henry, but not one comment was made to this effect. Even if I am misunderstanding the rule, nobody mentioned it as an Henry mistake - what good could it have possibly done for him to run in - only put off defenders and goalkeeper, which is why it was disallowed.


I am open to been convinced otherwise, but only about the actual ruling, not about his interference.





Another ruling question:
On a seperate issue. Offside. Every week it was pissing me off. You could see plain as day that players were not off side, but it was been pulled. On top of this all the commentators kept getting it wrong - or so I thought. I heard Andy go into it during the match - that it is no longer the rule that daylight must be seen between the two players. When did this come into effect? And I don't think most commentators know about it either. Again - what is the actual rule? In fact can someone just point me in the direction of the rules - are they on a website somewhere etc....

anyhow... sry for the ramble... later
jim

Thanx 4 The Fish

www.fifa.com in the search look for laws.

There is a 2004 version and a 2005 version and you can see wjhat the differences are if you are that interested.

The most important thing I feel is that the benefit of the doubt is supposed to go to the attacker but never is.

The Muppet

jimbling wrote:

Okay, I'm a bit confused on this one. I was watching the match and was nearly screaming at Andy Gray to shut his trap - how could Henry not be considered interfering in play????

I saw someone else make this point in another thread and PHB mentioned that he agreed but that that’s not the rules, by the rules it shouldn’t have been a goal. Can someone please explain to me the rule in question.

my view, and understanding -

In my eyes it was completely henrys fault that that goal was disallowed. I mean wtf was he thinking, he was a mile offside, and he turned around and started running towards the goal - he dragged a defender with him (although I doubt he would have gotton in front of VanPersie anyway), and obviously Czech would have been aware of him running in, and would be thinking about the possibility of VanPersie passing to Henry. HOW could this not be considered interfering with play??

Idiotic out of Henry, but not one comment was made to this effect. Even if I am misunderstanding the rule, nobody mentioned it as an Henry mistake - what good could it have possibly done for him to run in - only put off defenders and goalkeeper, which is why it was disallowed.


I am open to been convinced otherwise, but only about the actual ruling, not about his interference.





Another ruling question:
On a seperate issue. Offside. Every week it was pissing me off. You could see plain as day that players were not off side, but it was been pulled. On top of this all the commentators kept getting it wrong - or so I thought. I heard Andy go into it during the match - that it is no longer the rule that daylight must be seen between the two players. When did this come into effect? And I don't think most commentators know about it either. Again - what is the actual rule? In fact can someone just point me in the direction of the rules - are they on a website somewhere etc....

anyhow... sry for the ramble... later
jim

You certainly are confused . The game was Sunday.

Something will have to be done to address this issue. The rules as they stand are flawed and need to be changed.

Jivin Turkey

For all those who feel the goal should have stood, would their decision change had RVP's shot his a post and come out to Henry, who would subsequently be three or four metres ahead of Chelsea's CBs, with the goal at his mercy because Cech had dived to saved the initial shot?

The Rooster

I didnt think the "daylight" rule was ever a real rule. It was misinformation that Gray and Tyler received, and they passed it on to the rest of us and constantly harped on about it - until they realised their information was wrong.

Agree that Henry made a bags of things. Although I was sure at the time and until I started reading the debate on it here that it must have been van Persie who was flagged for offside.

MrJoeSoap

Jivin Turkey wrote:

For all those who feel the goal should have stood, would their decision change had RVP's shot his a post and come out to Henry, who would subsequently be three or four metres ahead of Chelsea's CBs, with the goal at his mercy because Cech had dived to saved the initial shot?

Of course, Henry would have been interfering with play then. Of course it can be argued that because Henry turned and ran towards the goal that he was interfering (by forcing Cech to attempt to cover both a potential shot or Van Persie squaring it to Henry).

Of course, none of this debate really actually matters.

TheDoc

ok here is the actual answer and the proper situation.

The goal should have been allowed. Linesmen have been instructed and its in the law that the linesman should not raise his flag until the player offside hs received the ball ,wether it be an initial pass or rebound or deflection.

If the offside player does not make any touch in the play he is not interfering.

Henry was offisde yes, but played no part in the goal, van persie clearly broke through and scored and by law it should have stood. Fact and final.

Now the debate lies on how henry can not be interfiering when he is giving defenders a split mind wether to step up or mark him, the keepr to come out or stay on his line.

At the end of the day fifa have messed up this rule and it should be a simple if your off your off. end of story. Players are jsut getting lazy now.

therecklessone

Refs chief Keith Hackett says it should have stood:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/a/arsenal/4544544.stm

The Muppet

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

Now the debate lies on how henry can not be interfiering when he is giving defenders a split mind wether to step up or mark him, the keepr to come out or stay on his line.

At the end of the day fifa have messed up this rule and it should be a simple if your off your off. end of story. Players are jsut getting lazy now.

Spot on that man.

jimbling

The Muppet wrote:

You certainly are confused . The game was Sunday.

lol... sry

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Of course, none of this debate really actually matters.

why do you say that... it matters as much as any other debate that goes on here. It is something lots of people are confused about... its not just me.

therecklessone wrote:

Refs chief Keith Hackett says it should have stood:

This is why I put up the post.. cause I don't see where he is getting it from.

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

ok here is the actual answer and the proper situation.

The goal should have been allowed. Linesmen have been instructed and its in the law that the linesman should not raise his flag until the player offside hs received the ball ,wether it be an initial pass or rebound or deflection.

If the offside player does not make any touch in the play he is not interfering.

hmmm... i can't find anything like that... this is what I found on the fifa website

FIFA wrote:

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.

If this is the law, then it was not a goal.

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

Players are jsut getting lazy now.

not at all - you have to assume that the referee will get it wrong, how slated would you be if you just don't mark him cause YOU know he was offside. then henry scores and no flag... its not players been lazy.

MrJoeSoap

jimbling wrote:

why do you say that... it matters as much as any other debate that goes on here. It is something lots of people are confused about... its not just me.

It was just an apathetic response because its not really going to change anyones opinions and FIFA will almost certainly bring in some equally ridiculous new ruling in for the start of next season.

jimbling

The Rooster wrote:

I didnt think the "daylight" rule was ever a real rule. It was misinformation that Gray and Tyler received, and they passed it on to the rest of us and constantly harped on about it - until they realised their information was wrong.

This seems like the most likely situation... looking on the Fifa website it states that a player is not offside if he is level with the 2nd last opponent. Therefore, if he is in any way ahead it should be offside. So is it like the finishing line of a horse race - even a nose ahead and he's offside.

So its Andy fault that I have been arguing with everyone for the last year about whether someone is offside or not :mad:

jimbling

MrJoeSoap wrote:

It was just an apathetic response because its not really going to change anyones opinions and FIFA will almost certainly bring in some equally ridiculous new ruling in for the start of next season.

okay, fifa arent exactly going to be reading the forum and decide to fix the rule because of it. But I don't see why this debate would not change someone's mind about the way these rules SHOULD be implemented.

It has already changed my mind about the daylight ruling (which I had, prior to sunday, thought was set in stone)

and there is an almighty amount of people that think the goal should of stood - including, as already mentioned, Keith Hackett. And I wish to find out why this is the case, when in my own mind, which is backed up by the fifa website rules, I think it is obviously not a goal. Am I missing something?

PHB

I think the rule is there to discourage the offside trap, which it should do, but teams still don't seem to get it.
The less you play the offside trap, the less you will get caught out.
What this rule does is discourage you to play the offside trap, cause you only need to get caught out by one attacker, which can be confusing.
Inturn this will lead to less stopages and more open football.
However this effect has not happened yet

MrJoeSoap

jimbling wrote:

okay, fifa arent exactly going to be reading the forum and decide to fix the rule because of it. But I don't see why this debate would not change someone's mind about the way these rules SHOULD be implemented.

Yeah, when I said "none of this debate really matters" I was only really referring to my own post. Of course people should discuss it, and as far as I'm concerned FIFA should be pressed to clarify the new rulings they implement every season. Whether this means a video presentation to be distributed to clubs/broadcasters or whatever, people playing and supporting the game alike should be made aware of new rules.

jesus_thats_gre

jimbling wrote:

Okay, I'm a bit confused on this one. I was watching the match and was nearly screaming at Andy Gray to shut his trap - how could Henry not be considered interfering in play???
jim

I agree. The fact he was directly in the line of sight of the keeper and only 18 yards away sorta means he was interfering with play..

Quite ironic that he thought Morientes was interfering with play for his second goal the other week..

jimbling

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Yeah, when I said "none of this debate really matters" I was only really referring to my own post. Of course people should discuss it, and as far as I'm concerned FIFA should be pressed to clarify the new rulings they implement every season. Whether this means a video presentation to be distributed to clubs/broadcasters or whatever, people playing and supporting the game alike should be made aware of new rules.

right... didnt realise that.

And fair point.

I am surprised there isn't more people replying to my posting of the Fifa rules.

gimmick

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

ok here is the actual answer and the proper situation.

The goal should have been allowed. Linesmen have been instructed and its in the law that the linesman should not raise his flag until the player offside hs received the ball ,wether it be an initial pass or rebound or deflection.

Not criticising you here, just the stupid rule, BUT if that is actually the case, what is stopping a manager putting a player on the 18 yard line at all times in order to put the opposition defense and keeper off.

Henry was offside (though the actual new rules say he wasn't), and IMO the goal was rightly disallowed.

To put another scaenario into place.

Harry Kewell is going down the left wing Vs Man U

John O shea is on his ass on the by the corner flag on his left hand side

If it werent for O Shea, Garcia is 3 yards offside.

Kewell puts in a pass for Kewell

The Man U hands go up for offside

Yet 'inactive' O Shea on the far side is playing him on.

Anyone see what Im getting at here???

mchurl

There are too many if's and but's in the current offside rule. The rule should be made clear and concise, either your onside or your offside, simple as.

Jammer

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

ok here is the actual answer and the proper situation.

The goal should have been allowed. Linesmen have been instructed and its in the law that the linesman should not raise his flag until the player offside hs received the ball ,wether it be an initial pass or rebound or deflection.

If the offside player does not make any touch in the play he is not interfering.

Henry was offisde yes, but played no part in the goal, van persie clearly broke through and scored and by law it should have stood. Fact and final.

Now the debate lies on how henry can not be interfiering when he is giving defenders a split mind wether to step up or mark him, the keepr to come out or stay on his line.

At the end of the day fifa have messed up this rule and it should be a simple if your off your off. end of story. Players are jsut getting lazy now.

That can't be right. Touching the ball or not, you can interfere.

Say Henry spent the previous 10mins standing 2ft away from chech, doing a little jig. You know, a nice slow number, humming a bit of James Blunt or something. Then in mid-song, RVP runs down, slots one home (because Chech cant see) and the goal stands, even though henry in a clear offside position is obstructing his view?

Doesnt sound right to me!

Royale with Cheese

There are all sorts of things you can say about this rule, all sorts of ways of interpreting it and all sorts of ways of implementing it... which is exactly why it's a pathetic rule that needs to be changed. The only thing you can possibly argue is that Henry turned and ran towards the goal, which he really shouldn't have. I fail to see how he distracted anyone and Van Persie was clean through on goal regardless of who was unable to chase him down because they were covering Henry. Van Persie didn't once look like he was going to pass. He put his head down, ran through on goal and beat Cech who wasn't taking any notice of Henry. Under the current law the goal should have stood but I suppose it really doesn't matter all that much now.

OY

IMO all this would have taken is Henry realizing he is way offside, turning around and walking away. The fact that he clearly lost concentration here means that Arsenal lost the goal.

Originally Posted by FIFA
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.

Obviously Henry was guilty of gaining an advantage by being in that position. Obviously he thought so too or else he would not have sprinted towards the goal!

Well that is my 2 cents!

Jivin Turkey

I cant remember myself, but does anyone know if RVP’s shot went in on the near post or the far post? If it went in the near surely it could be argued that Cech was conscious of Henry and adjusted his position accordingly. It would be very uncharacteristic of Cech to be beaten on the near post from that range.

Of course if it went in on the far post this post is pretty irrelevant!

gimmick

Far post as far as I remember.

I fail to see how he distracted anyon

??? because he is a top striker, who is 3 yards ahead of a defence.

The ruke should be changed back to the old way, if you are ahead of the defence when the ball is played, you are offside, interfering with play or not.

No interpretation, just hard and fast rule which will always stand up.

WhiteWashMan

well Keith Hackett has said the goal should have been allowed, and i guess if anyone knows the letter of the law, its the head of the refs association.

personally, i t loked like a good goal to me, but you know what they say, 'you cant change the scoreline now', and 'it will all even itself out over the season'

after all, as much as i would have loved mendes goal against utd to have stood, and we would have played in europe this year if wed had those two extra points, were not, and life goes on.

what ifs and buts dont really get you much.

but was a cracking goal alrigh t:)

WhiteWashMan

gimmick wrote:

Far post as far as I remember.



??? because he is a top striker, who is 3 yards ahead of a defence.

The ruke should be changed back to the old way, if you are ahead of the defence when the ball is played, you are offside, interfering with play or not.

No interpretation, just hard and fast rule which will always stand up.

actually, i would love to see the no offside rule applied.
it works well in hockey, there is no reason why it wouldnt work in football.
and before anyone stands up and tells me there are vasts differences between the sports, formation and stlye wise, there is very little difference.

jimbling

WhiteWashMan wrote:

actually, i would love to see the no offside rule applied.
it works well in hockey, there is no reason why it wouldnt work in football.
and before anyone stands up and tells me there are vasts differences between the sports, formation and stlye wise, there is very little difference.

there is vast differences between sports, formation and style wise

jimbling

but seriously... the offside rule is there to stop goalhangers. Without it it is near on impossible for a team to push up the pitch... due to the one lone striker just sitting in the box. The defense woulld constantly have to sit on the goal line.... dont think it would make for good football myself.

Hobart

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

ok here is the actual answer and the proper situation.

The goal should have been allowed. Linesmen have been instructed and its in the law that the linesman should not raise his flag until the player offside hs received the ball

That is incorrect. It is not in the "law" at all. The rule, rule 11 states,that a player is deemed to be offside if he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent

What you are refeering to is the interpretation, made my the English FA not FIFA, of what is classified as Interfering with play, and this is :
PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

,wether it be an initial pass or rebound or deflection.

If the offside player does not make any touch in the play he is not interfering.

That is correct. But Henry could be deemed to have been gaining an advantage from the position he was in, and therefore he is offside. Therfore the "goal", correctly, was dissallowed.

Henry was offisde yes, but played no part in the goal, van persie clearly broke through and scored and by law it should have stood. Fact and final.

No, not fact and final. It clearly states in the "law" that "The referee's decision is final.". So, even if the referee made a howler, which he did not imo, the rule backs him up as his decision is final.

vorbis

That rule is there Hobart so that game deciding decisions can not be contested after the match. As to the offside, you have to use the rule that is CURRENTLY there. By that rule, Henry is inactive and Van Persie is onside. It should have been a goal. The ref and linesman clearly got it wrong.

Hobart

vorbis wrote:

That rule is there Hobart so that game deciding decisions can not be contested after the match. As to the offside, you have to use the rule that is CURRENTLY there. By that rule, Henry is inactive and Van Persie is onside. It should have been a goal. The ref and linesman clearly got it wrong.

The fact is that Henry turned and started running towards the goal. It could be interpreted that The Arse got an advantage by Henry doing such. If that was the interpretation well then, by the FA's own rules, the goal should not stand. If it was not, then again by the FA's own rules, the goal should stand. I would lean on the side that Arsenal got an advantage by Henry being in the position that he was in.

vorbis

What you're talking about has been happening regularly for the last few years! I've seen plenty of goals where a striker breaks through with a player in front in an offside position.

He runs with the ball, and passes the ball to the other player who is now onside and that player scores. Obviously that player gained an advantage from being offside but that goal is legit under the CURRENT interpetation.

Villain

The linesman and ref got it wrong, the goal should have been allowed, Henry was not interferring with play and Van Persie was behind the ball when the pass was made thus onside.

jimbling

Hobart wrote:

What you are refeering to is the interpretation, made my the English FA not FIFA, of what is classified as Interfering with play, and this is :
PLAYING OR TOUCHING a ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

Where did you find this, i am looking on the FA website but can't find it.

MrJoeSoap

jimbling wrote:

Where did you find this, i am looking on the FA website but can't find it.

http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/index/0,2442,107252,00.html?comp=WYC&year=2005&articleid=107252

Hobart

jimbling wrote:

Where did you find this, i am looking on the FA website but can't find it.

FYI: Here

chiller

[DM]-TheDOC- wrote:

ok here is the actual answer and the proper situation.

The goal should have been allowed. Linesmen have been instructed and its in the law that the linesman should not raise his flag until the player offside hs received the ball ,wether it be an initial pass or rebound or deflection.

If the offside player does not make any touch in the play he is not interfering.

Henry was offisde yes, but played no part in the goal, van persie clearly broke through and scored and by law it should have stood. Fact and final.

Now the debate lies on how henry can not be interfiering when he is giving defenders a split mind wether to step up or mark him, the keepr to come out or stay on his line.

At the end of the day fifa have messed up this rule and it should be a simple if your off your off. end of story. Players are jsut getting lazy now.

well said doc! it should have been a goal henry didnt touch the ball and it was never played to him great finish as well by rvp chelsea get lucky again

jimbling

thanks for the links... that does change things a bit, both of those descriptions would lean you towards thinking that henry was not 'interfering with play'.

Hobart

vorbis wrote:

What you're talking about has been happening regularly for the last few years! I've seen plenty of goals where a striker breaks through with a player in front in an offside position.

He runs with the ball, and passes the ball to the other player who is now onside and that player scores. Obviously that player gained an advantage from being offside but that goal is legit under the CURRENT interpetation.

Do you have any "links" to the current interpretations? I think the current rules are the ones one the FA website.

irish1 wrote:

Henry was not interferring with play and Van Persie was behind the ball when the pass was made thus onside.

Van Persie was behind the ball?? Really? I must have been watching a different game. I thought he recieved it on the wing from Freddie Ljungberg.

MrJoeSoap

Hobart wrote:

Van Persie was behind the ball?? Really? I must have been watching a different game. I thought he recieved it on the wing from Freddie Ljungberg.

He certainly did.

WhiteWashMan

jimbling wrote:

but seriously... the offside rule is there to stop goalhangers. Without it it is near on impossible for a team to push up the pitch... due to the one lone striker just sitting in the box. The defense woulld constantly have to sit on the goal line.... dont think it would make for good football myself.

no not at all. what it does do is spread the play away from an exceedingly congested midfield.
you could certainly play with a goal hanger, but if youre that deperate that you have to play a formation like that, then its pretty easy for a keeper to collect a ball in that situation.

i think until its actually tried however at a decent level, then we wont really know. what i do know is that it made hockey more exciting, and less stop start. the goal average has gone up, but its certainly not a goal fest that people would thought it would be.

if you look at the number of split decisions in games these days (either given or not given) then i think there is certainly room for some more excitment in the game rather than some boring team that just continually plays the offside rule (and im casting glances at sunderland and charlton here).

PHB

It was tried, it was the rule for decades when football initally started, and the problem with it was people hung around the goal, and you had long ball football which is not at all enjoyable to watch. While you might get more goals, goals aren't necessarily excitment.

Also, when you say Hockey, do you mean Ice Hockey?

Ice Hockey has an offside rule, and one that I actually like.

I would like the offside rule as it is changed.
It is currently at the half-way line, but I feel if you changed it to 2/3's of the way down, it would be cooler, and have less of this stop start football, and spread the play a little more.

Hockey though is a different game, simply because you can't hit the ball miles in the sky to a taller player.
The tactics and formations might be similar, but this is a fundmental difference in teh game, you can't use your head

WhiteWashMan

no i dont mean ice hockey, i mean field hockey.

whlie you cant use your head, i can lift a ball halfway down a pitch, and a lot faster than david beckam can do it too!

i also dont believe that football when it was started is similar in standards to what is like today.

like i said, i dont think we will really know one way or the other until it is tested a high enough level in todays game.

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote:

no not at all. what it does do is spread the play away from an exceedingly congested midfield.
you could certainly play with a goal hanger, but if youre that deperate that you have to play a formation like that, then its pretty easy for a keeper to collect a ball in that situation.

i think until its actually tried however at a decent level, then we wont really know. what i do know is that it made hockey more exciting, and less stop start. the goal average has gone up, but its certainly not a goal fest that people would thought it would be.

if you look at the number of split decisions in games these days (either given or not given) then i think there is certainly room for some more excitment in the game rather than some boring team that just continually plays the offside rule (and im casting glances at sunderland and charlton here).

I would favour that suggestion. There is to much at stake today for games to be decided by a bad decision by an official. The year Porto won the CL they were only still in the comp because of a bad decision. There were well highlighted bad decisions in last years competitiion as well.

Doing away with offsde altogether would be preferable to the current situation where one human error can cost clubs millions of pounds in revenue.

WhiteWashMan

The Muppet wrote:

Doing away with offsde altogether would be preferable to the current situation where one human error can cost clubs millions of pounds in revenue.

well, id be more in it for the enjoyment factor that it would bring to the game myself, but if revenue is what blows your skirt up....

The Muppet

WhiteWashMan wrote:

well, id be more in it for the enjoyment factor that it would bring to the game myself, but if revenue is what blows your skirt up....

Roy Carroll;)

PHB

But what would be much much much much much cooler and have the same effective is total video evidence, so if the ref isn't sure on a decisions, or they want to challenge it, they can go to the ref.
There is no valid reason to stop it, and the whole time to do it is silly, considering how long people argue over bad decisions.

Hobart

PHB wrote:

But what would be much much much much much cooler and have the same effective is total video evidence, so if the ref isn't sure on a decisions, or they want to challenge it, they can go to the ref.
There is no valid reason to stop it, and the whole time to do it is silly, considering how long people argue over bad decisions.

I'd agree, also there is just too much riding on the result of a game (and potential game changing decisions) for this not to be introduced. Can't see the EFA going for it, the words "old" and "fashioned" spring to mind.:(

Villain

Hobart wrote:

Van Persie was behind the ball?? Really? I must have been watching a different game. I thought he recieved it on the wing from Freddie Ljungberg.

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Van Persie was behind Freddie when the ball was played??

WhiteWashMan

irish1 wrote:

Well correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Van Persie was behind Freddie when the ball was played??

i dont think so.

WhiteWashMan

The Muppet wrote:

Roy Carroll;)

personal abuse!