If it equals itself out over the season...

[Stranded]

ronaldo's goal (their third) against us in the league game

replay showed it was offside when giggs crossed to him

And when shown again with the line they super impose was shown to be onside.

The thing is it's easier to remember decisions that went against you (or are remembered as having gone against you) than ones that go for you.

[Don Finch]

I thought Ronaldo was offside too, it depends on how the law is followed. No ref actually goes by the 'daylight' idea - they still seem to use the old rule anyway. This is something that FIFA need to clear up, the daylight rule is bollocks because the refs don't actually follow it.

I would personally like to see the offside rule go back to black & white, at the moment it's too open to personal interpretation which then leads to inconsistency. I'm talking more about the rule of whether a player is interfering or not, too many bad decisions have been made where that is concerned if you ask me. I digress, but changing rules like this would make it easier for the refs and hopefully lead to more correct decisions.

[SpaceCruiser]

Three goals given offside for Blackburn, I think one of those was onside for sure. We lost anyway but it's all part of football karma.

No, they WERE all offside.

[Stranded]

I thought Ronaldo was offside too, it depends on how the law is followed. No ref actually goes by the 'daylight' idea - they still seem to use the old rule anyway. This is something that FIFA need to clear up, the daylight rule is bollocks because the refs don't actually follow it.

I would personally like to see the offside rule go back to black & white, at the moment it's too open to personal interpretation which then leads to inconsistency. I'm talking more about the rule of whether a player is interfering or not, too many bad decisions have been made where that is concerned if you ask me. I digress, but changing rules like this would make it easier for the refs and hopefully lead to more correct decisions.

There is no "daylight" rule/idea with regards to offside.

[Don Finch]

Three goals given offside for Blackburn, I think one of those was onside for sure. We lost anyway but it's all part of football karma.

No, they WERE all offside.

I think his second one was pretty close. His actual goal might have been offside even, there's another bone of contention.

[Don Finch]

There is no "daylight" rule/idea with regards to offside.

Did they not implement that rule in the end then, I thought they had? Commentators refer to it quite often anyway. Either way, of more importance is scrapping the interfering rule, even if it does mean the odd delay in play, or tweak it somehow.

[Stranded]

There is no "daylight" rule/idea with regards to offside.

Did they not implement that rule in the end then, I thought they had? Commentators refer to it quite often anyway. Either way, of more importance is scrapping the interfering rule, even if it does mean the odd delay in play, or tweak it somehow.

If they did it was very short lived.

The rule states: A player is offside if any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

[Don Finch]

If they did it was very short lived.

Well that's good news then, I can get back in my box now.

[skipper]

Please can some one post an official (as quoted on this thread) all the decisiosn gone ourway, and all those against, then we can have a extremly clear concise overview of this, then we can see whats in store for the rest of the season!

[nivek elyod]

Three goals given offside for Blackburn, I think one of those was onside for sure. We lost anyway but it's all part of football karma.

No, they WERE all offside.

I think his second one was pretty close. His actual goal might have been offside even, there's another bone of contention.

Unfortunately, 'close' doesn't count as onside (otherwise Kits would have many more goals ).

I don't understand some people's attitude to disallowed goals - if there were three correctly disallowed goals, that DOESN'T mean that the team 'deserves' a goal. And it shouldn't affect the linesman's next decision either...

[skipper]

Three goals given offside for Blackburn, I think one of those was onside for sure. We lost anyway but it's all part of football karma.

No, they WERE all offside.

I think his second one was pretty close. His actual goal might have been offside even, there's another bone of contention.

Unfortunately, 'close' doesn't count as onside (otherwise Kits would have many more goals ).

I don't understand some people's attitude to disallowed goals - if there were three correctly disallowed goals, that DOESN'T mean that the team 'deserves' a goal. And it shouldn't affect the linesman's next decision either...

Couldnt agree more, but it dosnt seam to work that way!

[Platypuss]

There is no "daylight" rule/idea with regards to offside.

Did they not implement that rule in the end then, I thought they had? Commentators refer to it quite often anyway. Either way, of more importance is scrapping the interfering rule, even if it does mean the odd delay in play, or tweak it somehow.

If they did it was very short lived.

The rule states: A player is offside if any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

Indeed - basically any part of the body that can legally play the ball.

[Behindu]

Seems counter intuitive - I would have though it more logical to say that you were ONSIDE if any part of your body was NOT closer to the goal than a defender - allowing the attacker the benefit of the doubt.

[Millsy]

There is no "daylight" rule/idea with regards to offside.

Did they not implement that rule in the end then, I thought they had? Commentators refer to it quite often anyway. Either way, of more importance is scrapping the interfering rule, even if it does mean the odd delay in play, or tweak it somehow.

If they did it was very short lived.

The rule states: A player is offside if any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent.

Indeed - basically any part of the body that can legally play the ball.

Wrong.

The rules clearly state:


Section 14 [B]:

Regarding the offside rule, if at any point it seems that you or anyone else might have finally acquired a total understanding this rule, you are automatically wrong and another (hitherto unmentioned) aspect of the rule must be revealed as soon as possible to prove this. This ensures that at no point will anyone fully grasp the rule, and thus referees and linesmen will have the power to give or refuse goals based on their whims at the time.

[RoyalBlue]

Not sure about things equalling out but what goes around certainly comes around!

Poor old Spurs have a dodgy penalty awarded against them tonight!

[One Beer is never enough.]

If it evens itself out, maybe spurs would be victim of a dodgy/ soft penalty decision ............

[One Beer is never enough.]

Not sure about things equalling out but what goes around certainly comes around!

Poor old Spurs have a dodgy penalty awarded against them tonight!

Great minds eh

[RoyalBlue]

I was thinking the same when I clicked and saw yours appear at about the same time as mine!

[Winchester Royal]

On the first game of the season, Viduka should have had an equaliser in the last 10 minutes, that was incorrectly ruled out for offside.

Shame

[PieEater]

I was thinking the same when I clicked and saw yours appear at about the same time as mine!

My thoughts too, I was surprised the interviewers didn't mention it to the crying Keane.