Didn’t Dion score..... (1 Viewer)

[shepardo01]

He can only be penalised offside from when the ball is played by a teammate.
When the cross comes in from Telfer(?) he is miles onside & this is the last touch by a City player.

There is no cause to rule the goal out either then or by today's laws.

"There is no cause to rule the goal out either then or by today's laws" -Yeah! Agree! - that - if you can be bothered to read all my previous spiel, is exactly what I was trying to discuss with Adge!

"He can only be penalised offside from when the ball is played by a teammate.
When the cross comes in from Telfer(?) he is miles onside & this is the last touch by a City player." - And yeah - but he was stood in an offside position when he moved past the ball when Given collected it but as Skyblefaz quoted above -it is not an offence to be in an offside position, so was agreeing with you, but also identifying related laws!

Agree with you that even under todays laws, goal should stand, whereas my debate with Adge has been around his interpretation that it shouldn't!

 

---

[Frostie]

"There is no cause to rule the goal out either then or by today's laws" -Yeah! Agree! - that - if you can be bothered to read all my previous spiel, is exactly what I was trying to discuss with Adge!

"He can only be penalised offside from when the ball is played by a teammate.
When the cross comes in from Telfer(?) he is miles onside & this is the last touch by a City player." - And yeah - but he was stood in an offside position when he moved past the ball when Given collected it but as Skyblefaz quoted above -it is not an offence to be in an offside position, so was agreeing with you, but also identifying related laws!

Agree with you that even under todays laws, goal should stand, whereas my debate with Adge has been around his interpretation that it shouldn't!

Gotcha & agreed

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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-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.

How? If he was onside when the last player on the attacking team touched the ball he isn't offside regardless of whether he ends up on the pitch, the line or off the field completely. Players don't need permission to come back on if momentum has taken them off. Otherwise a player that left the field to take a throw but then gave the ball to someone else would have to wait fro permission to be allowed back onto the pitch, as would a defender who'd slid off in a challenge (and thus shouldn't be considered active from thatpoint until given permission to return) or even a keeper that step behind his goaline for a goalkick.

It should be on the goalie to ensure there's no-one there to take the ball. Given threw the ball on the floor thus putting it back into open play. Had a player in front of him charged his clearance down while standing in front of the defenders it'd have counted.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

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.

How is he offside if it's an OPPOSITION player playing the ball?

 

[mark82]

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.

Not offside as he wasn't offside when the ball was played forward, surely.

 

[Adge]

This may explain the Man City one......

• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.
  

Offside law to read at your leisure-

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

 

[Skybluefaz]

This may explain the Man City one......

• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

Offside law to read at your leisure-

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

I think we all know who needs to brush up on it...

 

[Frostie]

This may explain the Man City one......

• A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.

Offside law to read at your leisure-

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game

www.thefa.com

Yes, we know why the Man City one stood, I was arguing it with people on Twitter at the time. It's a daft law but by the law the correct decision was made.

I'm just confused as to why you think Dublin's would now be disallowed?

 

[stevefloyd]

I remember sitting there thinking they won't allow that, pissed myself when they gave it

 

[cc84cov]

Was sat in the main stand near the front with my old man never forget this goal

 

[Adge]

I think we all know who needs to brush up on it...

Indeed.

 

[Adge]

Yes, we know why the Man City one stood, I was arguing it with people on Twitter at the time. It's a daft law but by the law the correct decision was made.

I'm just confused as to why you think Dublin's would now be disallowed?

He would be deemed to be “knowingly” gaining an advantage-yes his momentum took him off the pitch but he then waited to see what Given was going to do and there is the “unfair advantage” aspect. This would be deemed to be “circumventing the laws of the game” and would receive a caution for unsporting behaviour.
That’s why it wouldn’t be given now.
Maybe I wasn’t clear enough and could have explained it a bit better.
That’s also another reason why people (including me sometimes) get confused regarding the “wording” of the laws.
If you look at the updates from year to year and the changes made it is often the wording of the laws that get updated to try and stop confusion.

 

[Frostie]

He would be deemed to be “knowingly” gaining an advantage-yes his momentum took him off the pitch but he then waited to see what Given was going to do and there is the “unfair advantage” aspect. This would be deemed to be “circumventing the laws of the game” and would receive a caution for unsporting behaviour.
That’s why it wouldn’t be given now.

You'll have to show me which law that is, from what I can see he never commited any offence.

 

[Adge]

You'll have to show me which law that is, from what I can see he never commited any offence.

He didn’t AT THAT TIME (1996 or whenever it was). It wouldn’t be allowed now in 2021 with the current laws.

 

[Frostie]

He didn’t AT THAT TIME (1996 or whenever it was). It wouldn’t be allowed now in 2021 with the current laws.

I understand that. Which law NOW would see it disallowed? Can you link me to it?

 

[Brylowes]

2 - 2 for some reason i had convinced myself that Dion scored that goal in the game we beat Newcastle 4 - 1
my head hurts.

 

[Adge]

I understand that. Which law NOW would see it disallowed? Can you link me to it?

Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct-
Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
• attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
• changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
• commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
• denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence which was an attempt to play the ball and the referee awards a penalty kick
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
• makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
• plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
• shows a lack of respect for the game
• uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
• verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart

“Shows a lack of respect for the game” or the bit about “circumvent the law” which can be applied in the Dion scenario.

 

[Frostie]

Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct-
Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
• attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
• changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
• commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
• denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence which was an attempt to play the ball and the referee awards a penalty kick
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
• makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
• plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
• shows a lack of respect for the game
• uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
• verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart

“Shows a lack of respect for the game” or the bit about “circumvent the law” which can be applied in the Dion scenario.

"Circumvent the law" bit is specific to circumventing the pass back law so doesn't apply.

I'm 100% certain that no referee would judge it as "showing a lack of respect for the game" either, that's usually something like disrespecting the sport by urinating on the pitch etc.
It can be used if the referee believes you're deliberately disrespecting an opponent (showboating etc) but that's hardly the case here.

Even if somehow it was deemed as such the goal would still stand anyway, just the player would have been booked too. Think of that recent viral clip where the player slowly, slowly walks the ball to the empty net & waits until the defender arrives before putting it in.
He was (harshly) booked but you can't just disallow the goal when no offence has been committed.

 

[Adge]

"Circumvent the law" bit is specific to circumventing the pass back law so doesn't apply.

I'm 100% certain that no referee would judge it as "showing a lack of respect for the game" either, that's usually something like disrespecting the sport by urinating on the pitch etc.
It can be used if the referee believes you're deliberately disrespecting an opponent (showboating etc) but that's hardly the case here.

Even if somehow it was deemed as such the goal would still stand anyway, just the player would have been booked too. Think of that recent viral clip where the player slowly, slowly walks the ball to the empty net & waits until the defender arrives before putting it in.
He was (harshly) booked but you can't just disallow the goal when no offence has been committed.

Yes it is in that case to do with the backpass. “Circumventing the law” can apply to other laws too-not just the backpass case above.

 

[Frostie]

Yes it is in that case to do with the backpass. “Circumventing the law” can apply to other laws too-not just the backpass case above.

Right... But what law would Dion be circumventing?

It's literally impossible to disallow that goal, even under today's laws, I'm not sure why you're so convinced otherwise?

 

[Skybluefaz]

Right... But what law would Dion be circumventing?

It's literally impossible to disallow that goal, even under today's laws, I'm not sure why you're so convinced otherwise?

Entrenched in an opinion and not big enough to admit he's wrong.

 

[Adge]

Entrenched in an opinion and not big enough to admit he's wrong.

Yes I’m wrong-I’ve only been an official for 20 years. But you know best.........

 

[Skybluefaz]

Yes I’m wrong-I’ve only been an official for 20 years. But you know best.........

You said it was offside

 

[Adge]

He was never in an offside position.

According to Law 11, a defending player who leaves the field of play for any reason shall be considered to be positioned on their goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside. When it comes to attacking players, it is only said that they can step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play, but if they re-enter from the goal line they may be penalised for offside (Law 11.4).

 

[Legia Sky Blue]

Yes I’m wrong-I’ve only been an official for 20 years. But you know best.........

The laws you have pointed to are open to an interpretation which you have taken in regards to 'circumventing the back pass rule' and 'respecting the game', and then applying it to Dublin's goal, which other refs may or may not agree with. The circumstances of the Dion goal do not 'clearly' apply to those laws it is just your abstract interpretation of them. As for being an official for 20 years this is a clear example of refs being right even when they're wrong, and shows why most fans have such disrespect for them.

 

[kg82]

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.

Wait, you’re saying Dion’s goal would be disallowed today? It really wouldn’t. When the cross came in for him he was in a perfectly legitimate position. His momentum took him off the pitch and behind Given, who hadn’t seen him and then threw it out to play from the ground. Once Given put the ball down it’s in play again. Dublin was entitled to put the ball in the back of the net. At no point was he offside.

 

[Adge]

Wait, you’re saying Dion’s goal would be disallowed today? It really wouldn’t. When the cross came in for him he was in a perfectly legitimate position. His momentum took him off the pitch and behind Given, who hadn’t seen him and then threw it out to play from the ground. Once Given put the ball down it’s in play again. Dublin was entitled to put the ball in the back of the net. At no point was he offside.

Please read post no 59.

 

[Frostie]

According to Law 11, a defending player who leaves the field of play for any reason shall be considered to be positioned on their goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside. When it comes to attacking players, it is only said that they can step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play, but if they re-enter from the goal line they may be penalised for offside (Law 11.4).

You're trying yourself in knots here...

For the "purposes of offside" being the key. There's no offside decision to be made as he's miles on when the ball is played.

The law change is to stop the Ebanks-Blake scenario as linked to earlier where he would have been offside when the initial shot came in but circumvented it by being off the pitch. This happened a full 11 years after the Dublin one. If it was deemed the Dublin one was a loophole it surely would have been changed before that?

Furthermore, why do you now see goalkeepers checking behind them before releasing the ball? Why would they need to if a goal wouldn't count anyway?

 

[Adge]

You're trying yourself in knots here...

For the "purposes of offside" being the key. There's no offside decision to be made as he's miles on when the ball is played.

The law change is to stop the Ebanks-Blake scenario as linked to earlier where he would have been offside when the initial shot came in but circumvented it by being off the pitch. This happened a full 11 years after the Dublin one. If it was deemed the Dublin one was a loophole it surely would have been changed before that?

Furthermore, why do you now see goalkeepers checking behind them before releasing the ball? Why would they need to if a goal wouldn't count anyway?

We’ll leave it there. You asked me to give you a link to the relevant law which I have-that being 11.4.
Now if you want to contradict it to make your argument valid then plough on.

 

[Frostie]

We’ll leave it there. You asked me to give you a link to the relevant law which I have-that being 11.4.
Now if you want to contradict it to make your argument valid then plough on.

Well, I knew the offside law & knew Dublin's goal in no way breaks it as he has to be in an offside position when the ball is played by a teammate, thanks for proving it.

Thank god you don't referee the games my team plays!

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

According to Law 11, a defending player who leaves the field of play for any reason shall be considered to be positioned on their goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside. When it comes to attacking players, it is only said that they can step or stay off the field of play not to be involved in active play, but if they re-enter from the goal line they may be penalised for offside (Law 11.4).

But they still have to meet the criteria for offside (i.e. being ahead of the last defender when their teammate hit the ball). He didn't, and still wouldn't, meet that criteria.

 

[Frostie]

But they still have to meet the criteria for offside (i.e. being ahead of the last defender when their teammate hit the ball). He didn't, and still wouldn't, meet that criteria.

He doesn't understand that for some reason or is choosing to wilfully ignore it rather than admit his mistake.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Law 12 Fouls and Misconduct-
Cautions for unsporting behaviour
There are different circumstances when a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour including if a player:
• attempts to deceive the referee, e.g. by feigning injury or pretending to have been fouled (simulation)
• changes places with the goalkeeper during play or without the referee’s permission (see Law 3)
• commits in a reckless manner a direct free kick offence
• handles the ball to interfere with or stop a promising attack
• commits any other offence which interferes with or stops a promising attack, except where the referee awards a penalty kick for an offence which was an attempt to play the ball
• denies an opponent an obvious goal-scoring opportunity by an offence which was an attempt to play the ball and the referee awards a penalty kick
• handles the ball in an attempt to score a goal (whether or not the attempt is successful) or in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent a goal
• makes unauthorised marks on the field of play
• plays the ball when leaving the field of play after being given permission to leave
• shows a lack of respect for the game
• uses a deliberate trick to pass the ball (including from a free kick) to the goalkeeper with the head, chest, knee etc. to circumvent the Law, whether or not the goalkeeper touches the ball with the hands
• verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart

“Shows a lack of respect for the game” or the bit about “circumvent the law” which can be applied in the Dion scenario.

Both open to interpretation and with one assumes you consider it in isolation from the rest of the bullet point. Circumvent the law seems to relate specifically to backpasses.

Plus this specifically is about booking players rather than the actual offence.

I would argue that Dion wasn't showing a lack of respect for the game but looking to take advantage of the opposition not paying attention. You may argue differently.

 

[Adge]

Interestingly I’ve just received this from the FA regarding the Man City goal against Villa. To avoid it happening again it would now be offside.......

 

[Malaka]

Shay Given, the only Irishman who didn't know where Dublin was