No. Dion was off pitch behind goal line so not offside. Their goalkeeper started dribbling it in penalty area. So Dion had every right to come back on pitch and make the tackle to score. Their keeper last to play ball so couldnt be off side....a goal like that?
Yep but wouldn’t be a goal now. They changed it years ago to stop that happening again. So if a player is off the pitch (by momentum or to gain an advantage) he is deemed to be on the line so would be offside.No. Dion was off pitch behind goal line so not offside. Their goalkeeper started dribbling it in penalty area. So Dion had every right to come back on pitch and make the tackle to score. Their keeper last to play ball so couldnt be off side.
Offside all day long I’m afraid. Wish people would stop listening to all these silly pundits who think they all know the laws of the game, but in reality they haven’t got a clue.Sort of - came from behind player - Shay Given - but was not offiside when ball was played "forward" from the cross that was put in, unlike the MCFC player who was offiside at every point! (although ridiculously NOT offiside (despite being in an offside position!) from the point Mings touched the ball!!)
Surely it would be allowed, same principle in terms of the laws related to last night. If he was "on the line" he still would not be offside (although now standing in an offside position)-(wasn't off from cross), and then as soon as Given "deliberately " plays the ball, he is "onside" same as last night.Yep but wouldn’t be a goal now. They changed it years ago to stop that happening again. So if a player is off the pitch (by momentum or to gain an advantage) he is deemed to be on the line so would be offside.
I know it was offside, my comments are in relation to this "loophole " in the law and how ridiculous it is.Offside all day long I’m afraid. Wish people would stop listening to all these silly pundits who think they all know the laws of the game, but in reality they haven’t got a clue.
Dinosaurs like Linaker et al still think the laws of the game are the same as when they played-they probably didn’t know them then either.
The way it would be interpreted now in the Dion situation would be that he was off the pitch-so on the line for the benefit of Off Side-therefore gaining an advantage and would be flagged.Surely it would be allowed, same principle in terms of the laws related to last night. If he was "on the line" he still would not be offside (although now standing in an offside position)-(wasn't off from cross), and then as soon as Given "deliberately " plays the ball, he is "onside" same as last night.
You sure they didn't change the rule in relation to goals like Ebanks- Blake goal against us at Molineux where he came back from behind the goal line to head the ball directly in- it not having been deliberately played by an opposition (city) player..
Yes-I remember being at the game and was fuming aswell! That’s the reason they changed it to stop that happeningIn relation to Ebanks Blake.
Given played the ball.... deliberately, by rolling it in front of him to kick from the ground! Surely, according to laws, and exactly the same as last night, the goal stands! Can't see any difference, the rule change making it even more comparable to last night in terms of him being classed as on the pitch... same as the Man City Player.The way it would be interpreted now in the Dion situation would be that he was off the pitch-so on the line for the benefit of Off Side-therefore gaining an advantage and would be flagged.
If the ball was cleared upfield by Given then play would have continued.
This one was more to do with the Keeper having the ball under control, laws changed now that you aren't allowed to obstruct or challenge/attempt to stop the keeper from releasing the ball.Similar goal scored by Gary Crosby for Forest. Came from behind the goalie (Andy Dibble) and headed the ball out of the keepers hands and tucked it away. Not offside but rules changed afterwards to stop this type of advantageous play.
No-Given dropped the ball so the ball was in play at the moment Dion (in today’s interpretation) came back from on offside position and gained an advantage. That would be chalked off in today’s game.Given played the ball.... deliberately, by rolling it in front of him to kick from the ground! Surely, according to laws, and exactly the same as last night, the goal stands! Can't see any difference, the rule change making it even more comparable to last night in terms of him being classed as on the pitch... same as the Man City Player.
Correct-and it’s one hand to deem the ball being under control by the goalkeeper and not 2 hands which is what people think.This one was more to do with the Keeper having the ball under control, laws changed now that you aren't allowed to obstruct or challenge/attempt to stop the keeper from releasing the ball.
No-Given dropped the ball so the ball was in play at the moment Dion (in today’s interpretation) came back from on offside position and gained an advantage. That would be chalked off in today’s game.
Last night the Man City player was not off the pitch so it’s 2 different scenarios.
He was not interfering with play in the phase of play BEFORE Mings controls the ball. Mings then controlled the ball so it becomes a new phase of play-and the Man City player hasn’t gained an advantage during that 2nd phase.
No-Given dropped the ball so the ball was in play at the moment Dion (in today’s interpretation) came back from on offside position and gained an advantage. That would be chalked off in today’s game.
This seems like the obvious answer to me. What am I missing?Dion's goal, even now with the new ruling of being treated as on the line, would still count as he was never in an offside position when a teammate played the ball.
Me too. The keeper is the same as any other player when he has the ball at his feet.This seems like the obvious answer to me. What am I missing?
I’ve tried to explain it as best I can Gents regarding the 2 different scenarios and we can get lost I guess in the “science”.Cheers Adge - however, this is/is this not, where things and aspects of specific laws seem down to interpretation? - Genuine question.
Firstly - you stated previously that part of the law had changed to infer that a player off the pitch, was classed as being "on the pitch - goal line specifically" - so therefore, is it not the pretty much exact "same" scenario? "Last night the Man City player was not off the pitch so it’s 2 different scenarios."
Secondly - you stated that Given "dropped the ball" - "literally" yes he did, but he collected the ball from the cross comfortably (ending that attacking phase of play) settled himself, then "deliberately played the ball" - deliberate act of releasing the ball in effect playing the ball, and starting a new phase of play - surely that is when Dion becomes "live" and as it is a different phase -not offside.....
In todays game, could you also not argue that as Dion didn't challenge Given (yes, he was in the vicinity of him) that he could be argued at that particular stage - (and certainly not being offside from the cross!!) that he was not interfering?
To me it makes sense - but can see where you are coming from - so going back to my intro -is it down to people interpreting laws (and also actions of players!?), despite them being in black and white, differently!??
I’ve tried to explain it as best I can Gents regarding the 2 different scenarios and we can get lost I guess in the “science”.
Dion was/would be “gaining an advantage” returning from an offside position.
Correct. We are talking about how it would be interpreted in today’s game.He was never in an offside position.
Correct. We are talking about how it would be interpreted in today’s game.
Technically, when he was behind Given - this "is" an "offside position" - don't know the exact wording - Adge may, but you can be stood in an offside position but not be "offside" - (this is where then the whole playing the pall forward, interfering with play, being active aspects come into it)He was never in an offside position.
That's the one!!Offside position
It is not an offence to be in an offside position.
Technically, when he was behind Given - this "is" an "offside position" - don't know the exact wording - Adge may, but you can be stood in an offside position but not be "offside" - (this is where then the whole playing the pall forward, interfering with play, being active aspects come into it)
Think we can see here why Man City's goal has sparked so much debate!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?