Ireland's disallowed "goal" this evening.

Pighead

Was it rightly ruled offside? I noticed in the match thread that the decision seems to have divided a few posters. Just wondering if anybody knows for sure the exact rule with regards to a player "interfering with play" Like say if Doyle was a couple of yards to the left or right(but still offside) and not in front of the keeper would the goal have stood?

Is there a hard and fast rule or is it a bit of a grey area?

CiaranC

Yeah, technically Doyle was offside.

The laws of the game say:

A player in an offside position is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he is involved in active play "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team.

"Active play" includes:

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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

Offside is complicated. When your bird says she understands it, she is lying.

Carcharodon

Player was in offside position, no one can argue that !
He was close enough to last defender to influence the defenders movement and he also influenced keeper, so it probably was the right call

jesus_thats_gre

Check out page 18 of this:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf

therecklessone

This needs a thread of it's own?

Anyone who saw the incident would have seen the match, and if they were inclined to comment would have done so in the match thread.

This thread has a limited shelf life.

SantryRed

It wasn't ruled offside because the player was interfering. It was ruled offside beside the linesman thought Doyle touched it. The goal would of stood if it had been clear it hit the centre half.

LuckyLloyd

Whether he is interfering with play or not is a matter of opinion and, as such, a gray area.

CiaranC

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Whether he is interfering with play or not is a matter of opinion and, as such, a gray area.

Pretty much every decision is a matter of opinion, the referees opinion.

Thats why you see ", in the opinion of the referee," all over the laws of the game.

Pighead

therecklessone wrote: »

This needs a thread of it's own?

Anyone who saw the incident would have seen the match, and if they were inclined to comment would have done so in the match thread.

This thread has a limited shelf life.

Damn right it needs a thread of it's own. When I'm watching football with my girlfriend or my less intelligent pals I like to exude an air of invincibility regarding the laws of the game of soccer which we all love so much. This whole "interfering with play" nonsense has me stumped and I had to bluff my way through a spluttered answer earlier on when they asked me what was going on re the disallowed goal.

As such, Pighead created this thread in an effort to get a definitive answer so as to be more on the ball the next time this happens. There's plenty of shitty threads in the forum. Why pick on mine? Threads are free.

jesus_thats_gre

SantryRed wrote: »

It wasn't ruled offside because the player was interfering. It was ruled offside beside the linesman thought Doyle touched it. The goal would of stood if it had been clear it hit the centre half.

He was standing in an offside position between the striker of the ball and the goal keeper. He actually had to jump over the ball to avoid touching it. There are quite a few reasons that it could be awarded offside going by the definitions above.



Tis not exactly conclusive but if the goal was awarded against us, there would be hell to pay.

ntlbell

therecklessone wrote: »

This thread has a limited shelf life.

So what?

some threads go a handfull of posts some go a few pages I don't think there's a need to pop into each one giving your estimation on how long it might last

unless your running a book and offering some action?

CiaranC

Pighead wrote: »

There's plenty of shitty threads in the forum. Why pick on mine? Threads are free.

Cos hes just been made a mod and hes itching to use all the new buttons he sees when he logs in

ntlbell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Whether he is interfering with play or not is a matter of opinion and, as such, a gray area.

i think because of all this grey area we need to go back to the good aul days

if you're off you're bloody off no messing.

Mitch Connor

ntlbell wrote: »

i think because of all this grey area we need to go back to the good aul days

if you're off you're bloody off no messing.

nah - calling offside for a guy on the other side of the pitch who has nothing to do with the play, is a pain in the arse and annoys me.

Carcharodon

SantryRed wrote: »

It wasn't ruled offside because the player was interfering. It was ruled offside beside the linesman thought Doyle touched it. The goal would of stood if it had been clear it hit the centre half.

That well may be the case but we would still have the same argument as that would be deemed the wrong decision by many because in the opinion of some Doyle would be deemed to be interfering with how the opponents are able to play the ball while in an offside position !

LuckyLloyd

CiaranC wrote: »

Pretty much every decision is a matter of opinion, the referees opinion.

Thats why you see ", in the opinion of the referee," all over the laws of the game.

Sure. Though I think it was fairly clear what I meant:

- the basic offside rule is black and white in so far as 'no opposition outfield player between you and the goal when the ball is played forward to you' = offside;
- whereas this is very much a gray issue as what constitutes 'interfering with play' in a specific situation can be highly debatable;

ntlbell

Mitch Connor wrote: »

nah - calling offside for a guy on the other side of the pitch who has nothing to do with the play, is a pain in the arse and annoys me.

for the rare times that happens i'd prefer the grey cleared up

there's no real reason you should be off standing on the other side of the pitch what are you doing there? get on fecking side.

the only player i can see having a problem with this would be kyut

LuckyLloyd

ntlbell wrote: »

So what?

some threads go a handfull of posts some go a few pages I don't think there's a need to pop into each one giving your estimation on how long it might last

unless your running a book and offering some action?

CiaranC wrote: »

Cos hes just been made a mod and hes itching to use all the new buttons he sees when he logs in

Gentlemen, careful now.

CiaranC

Carcharodon wrote: »

That well may be the case but we would still have the same argument as that would be deemed the wrong decision by many because in the opinion of some Doyle would be deemed to be interfering with how the opponents are able to play the ball while in an offside position !

Look, hes offside because he is in an offside position and deemed to be in active play by the ref when the ball was played, as I posted above.

ntlbell

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Gentlemen, careful now.

?

Do i not have a very valid point?

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think it was a fair decision myself

LuckyLloyd

ntlbell wrote: »

?

Do i not have a very valid point?

Maybe, but lets say no more about it tis all. The thread lives.

Mitch Connor

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Gentlemen, careful now.

Why?

NTLBELL responded directly to a comment made about the thread that doesn't appear to have been a mod warning of any kind, and CiaranC was having a laugh. Are mods that precious?

ntlbell

anything that's left up to objective opinion is going to cause a lot of problems

thats why the old rule should be brought back in everyone knows where they stand

if you ask a profesional footballer to explain some off side desicions i bet a vast majority have no idea anymore what's on and what's off

this is not good

CiaranC

ntlbell wrote: »

anything that's left up to objective opinion is going to cause a lot of problems

thats why the old rule should be brought back in everyone knows where they stand

I think offside as it stands actually seems to work quite well, even though you need a phd to understand it.

nkay1985

I watched the game with my father who was a ref for over ten years. He thought the only way it could be ruled offside was if the ball had hit him because he wasn't blocking the keeper's vision or anything like that. Tought call to make though in such a short space of time.

GuanYin

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Whether he is interfering with play or not is a matter of opinion and, as such, a gray area.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "not interfering with play".

Any forward player should receive the attention of the defenders, even if his marker leaves him to cover the play, I imagine that the presence of the player would cause a second's hesitation at the very least....

therecklessone

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Why?

NTLBELL responded directly to a comment made about the thread that doesn't appear to have been a mod warning of any kind, and CiaranC was having a laugh. Are mods that precious?

Here's a mod note:

Any more discussion on moderation can occur by PM with myself, any more on this thread will be deleted. There is a topic here that contrary to my initial belief people seem interested in discussing, so how about we all get back on topic?

ditpoker

if he's not interfering with play he shouldnt be on the pitch!!!

LuckyLloyd

GuanYin wrote: »

In my opinion, there is no such thing as "not interfering with play".

Any forward player should receive the attention of the defenders, even if his marker leaves him to cover the play, I imagine that the presence of the player would cause a second's hesitation at the very least....

Yes and no. If Doyle had been stood five meters further to the goalkeeper's left hand side and was attracting the attention of one of the defenders over to the left of the one he was standing off at the time, this goal should and would have stood. Because, yes, he is in general play by being on the pitch - but he he is not directly influencing or affecting the play or incident in question.

Now the above hypothetical is a long way away on the offside / not offside scale from the exact situation that spawned this discussion. But just because tonight we saw relevant interference, does not mean that everytime a player is in an offside position it should warrant the raising of an offside flag.

Mmmm, a bit rambly but my point should be clear.

EDIT: Some people need to think about what their posts in this thread are effectively advocating. Because it is going to suck an awful lot if goals start being chalked off because an attacking player was lying injured in an offside position towards the corner flag. 'But he was on the pitch and, as such, interfering in play!!' : )

Pighead

jesus_thats_gre wrote: »

Check out page 18 of this:

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf

Cheers, that seems to suggest that the referee got it spot on this evening alright.

I'd be inclined to agree with Lucky Lloyd's point of view but at the same time I do realise that it's very frustrating that there can be no definitive cut and dried law to avoid these controversial decisions.

SectionF

Dumbest rule in football. If he's forward of any opposing player, bar the keeper, he's actively interfering with play. If he's standing almost directly in front of the keeper, how on earth can there be anything to discuss?

entropi

Sadly yeah he WAS offside, but didnt stop most of us jumping like we won the lotto hehe:) We won in the end, thats all that matters eh.

shane86

CiaranC wrote: »

Yeah, technically Doyle was offside.

The laws of the game say:

A player in an offside position is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he is involved in active play "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team.

"Active play" includes:

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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

Offside is complicated. When your bird says she understands it, she is lying.

Thanks, I was wondering myself

The replay CLEARLY showed Doyle was not obstructing the view of the keeper. The keeper was in no way impeded by his presence. Nor was Doyle attempting to intercept the ball. No bones whatsoever about it. Therefore, bad call.

Maybe the ref knew this when he awarded us that bizarre but much appreciated peno. It isnt unheard of for refs to make up for a howler by awarding another one tbh, and sure it was his last day on the job after all. Maybe he realised we were robbed on it.

Pighead

SectionF wrote: »

Dumbest rule in football. If he's forward of any opposing player, bar the keeper, he's actively interfering with play. If he's standing almost directly in front of the keeper, how on earth can there be anything to discuss?

Not quite directly though which means it could be argued that he didn't clearly obstruct the keepers’s line of vision thus deeming the goal legal.

I remember a few seasons back when Man Utd played Southampton and Ruud was offside when the ball was played in but then moved onside as play developed and a second later knocked the ball into the net. There was a shitstorm over that decision and Strachan was going mental over it. All the talk back then was off different "phases of play". Haven't seen an incident like that in a while actually.

CiaranC

shane86 wrote: »

The replay CLEARLY showed Doyle was not obstructing the view of the keeper. The keeper was in no way impeded by his presence. Nor was Doyle attempting to intercept the ball. No bones whatsoever about it. Therefore, bad call.

Yeah, but he might have been "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent." The wording is very broad.

_blank_

He was in the six yard box, he was interfering with play.

Absolutely no question, none at all.

It is not a "grey area". If you are in the six yard box when a shot comes in from the edge of the box, you are definitely interfering with play.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to remove their green-tinted specs.

What about the disallowed Georgia goal then?

Was that the right or wrong call? Because the Georgian fella was much more removed from the play than Doyle.

Mitch Connor

Des wrote: »

He was in the six yard box, he was interfering with play.

Absolutely no question, none at all.

It is not a "grey area". If you are in the six yard box when a shot comes in from the edge of the box, you are definitely interfering with play.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to remove their green-tinted specs.

What about the disallowed Georgia goal then?

Was that the right or wrong call? Because the Georgian fella was much more removed from the play than Doyle.

How the hell was the georgia fella removed from play, he scored directly as a result of being in an offside position - Doyle never even touched the ball. The two situations are quite different. If the keeper had parried the ball and Doyle knocked it in I would have no complaints about an offside call, but that didn't happen.

shane86

Des wrote: »

He was in the six yard box, he was interfering with play.

Absolutely no question, none at all.

It is not a "grey area". If you are in the six yard box when a shot comes in from the edge of the box, you are definitely interfering with play.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to remove their green-tinted specs.

.

Again....
A player in an offside position is only committing an offside offence if, in the opinion of the referee, he is involved in active play "at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team.

"Active play" includes:

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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent


Doyle was nowhere near trying to intercept the ball. He was not blocking the view at the time the shot was fired. IIRC it deflected off Kaladze anyway (I was more watching where Doyle was on the replay tbh). Under the above interpretation of the rule he was 100% not attempting to get the ball and was not blocking the view of the keeper. And the ref realised this to the extent he compensated on his final international match by giving us a make up penalty, as that is the only reason we could have got the call.

We didnt win pretty, but we were shafted in the first half and compensated in the 2nd.

ShooterSF

I always thought the rule should be that if you're in the box and offside you're offside. Someone is going to be marking you or be distracted by you. But then again I can see a few problems with that too.

With the current rules. I'm not sure. This why a ref press conference after a match would be good for the game.

Also last night later in the game we had a corner. It was cleared to the edge of the box. Whelan or Andrews hit a shot. 3 of our players were in an offside position when he hit it. The ball hit a defender and this time went wide. It was given as a corner not offside. The only difference was it didn't go in the goal.

_blank_

shane86 wrote: »

Doyle was nowhere near trying to intercept the ball. He was not blocking the view at the time the shot was fired. IIRC it deflected off Kaladze anyway (I was more watching where Doyle was on the replay tbh). Under the above interpretation of the rule he was 100% not attempting to get the ball and was not blocking the view of the keeper. And the ref realised this to the extent he compensated on his final international match by giving us a make up penalty, as that is the only reason we could have got the call.

ffs.

He was in the six yard box.

He was interfering with play.

How you can argue he wasn't is beyond belief.

He was no more than a yard from the 'keeper, and was touching Kaladze.

He was most definitely interfering with play.

Pighead

Des wrote: »

He was in the six yard box, he was interfering with play.

Absolutely no question, none at all.

It is not a "grey area". If you are in the six yard box when a shot comes in from the edge of the box, you are definitely interfering with play.

Anyone who says otherwise needs to remove their green-tinted specs.

What about the disallowed Georgia goal then?

Was that the right or wrong call? Because the Georgian fella was much more removed from the play than Doyle.

Think you may need to watch those incidents again Des.

_blank_

Pighead wrote: »

Think you may need to watch those incidents again Des.

The Georgia goal maybe, but the Ireland one definitely not.

Doyle definitely influenced Kaladze's position before Andrews' shot, so it was Doyle's interference that caused Kaladze to be in the position to deflect the ball past the keeper.

Therefore, offside.

shane86

Des wrote: »

ffs.

He was in the six yard box.

He was interfering with play.

How you can argue he wasn't is beyond belief.

He was no more than a yard from the 'keeper, and was touching Kaladze.

He was most definitely interfering with play.

Nonsense, frankly, under the interpretation CiaranC found. His presence made zero difference to the keepers view as the shot was fired, which was the grounds given for claiming he was interfering with play. He was not touching Kaladze immediately prior to the goal- fcuk if he was he probably would have inadvertantly ended up knocking it outfield. And lastly, Andrews wasnt playing him a pass, Doyle had no intention of intercepting the ball- why would he?

And, to reiterate, why exactly do you think the ref gave us that penalty? We got lucky in that it was his final day on the job!

_blank_

shane86 wrote: »

And, to reiterate, why exactly do you think the ref gave us that penalty?

Er....what?

The ref gave the penalty because he saw a handball.

There may not have been a handball, but the ref saw one.

shane86

Des wrote: »

Er....what?

The ref gave the penalty because he saw a handball.

There may not have been a handball, but the ref saw one.

:pac:

Whatever..........

jamsieboy86

I personally didn't think he was interfering with play, but the key words in CiaranC's post are 'in the opinion of the referee', some refs might have allowed it. It's up to each individual ref for their interpretation, thats why there is no consistency with regard to offside.

bigstar

of course he was offside, hes standing between the keeper and andrews when andrews shoots, how is that not interfering with play, its a stupid rule the interference part, if your on the pitch your in active play.
and thinking the peno was because the ref got the offside wrong, seriously, refs dont give offsides, linesmen do. the peno was just an awful decision, the only bad one of the night.

Boggles

Was it not technically an OG since it came off the defender?

citytillidie

Just asking how was this different from gibbsons goal today the united player jumped over the ball and was clearly offside.

dreamers75

citytillidie wrote: »

Just asking how was this different from gibbsons goal today the united player jumped over the ball and was clearly offside.

Todays lino bottled it after calling uniteds other goal offside about 3 minutes after it went in.