Carver
Well-Known Member
I'm with you Mooney, it's when the ball is 'played', i.e. when Huddlestone shot.
Huddlestones goal
- Thread starter dave_blue12
- Start date
M
M
mat
Guest
RichieTHFC
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 101
Dont be silly, Gallas had no effect whatsoever on Schwarzer
BlueMooney said:
I never said Gallas was played onside.... he was rendered inactive by the deflection.... he was still in an offside position but inactive....... as the ball was touched by an opponent before it went anywhere near him.....
Barcon
Well-Known Member
If you lot think it's confusing, I just read five pages of this before I realised Gallas doesn't play for Arsenal anymore.
BlueMooney
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2008
- Messages
- 2,036
No, the deflection doesn't make him inactive either. If the deflection made him inactive and he connected with the ball, then he should be onside. But page 107 here shows he isn't: <a class="postlink" href="http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame%5f2010%5f11%5fe.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affeder ... 11%5fe.pdf</a>marcspurs said:
The argument has to be whether his swing for the ball interferes with Schwarzer or not. It's got nothing to do with any deflection on the original shot.
Carver
Well-Known Member
Offside position:
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the field of play or
• he is level with the second-last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents
Offence:
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
No offence:
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick
• a throw-in
• a corner kick
This is the offside law, there is nothing to say you are not interfering with play after a deflection. The point of conjecture here is that Gallas was clearly in an offside position (though not necessarily commiting an offside offence) and the ref has interpreted it as the player was neither interfering with play, another player or gaining an advantage by being in that position.
I/f with another player, debatable, gaining an advantage by being in that position, likely, but what is 'gaining an advantage as just by being in an offside position you are gaining an advantage unless you are slowly walking back towards your own goal and don't take part in the cuurrent or any secondary moves from that attack.
The FA don't make the laws, FIFA do! There are no new laws for 2010-2011 although the downloadable booklet from FIFA is labelled as 2010- 2011. The current laws came into foorce 28th February 2009.
So, to sum up this scenario, Gallas was in an offside position and distracted the keeper after the ball was kicked by Huddlestone but, as Schwarzer attempted to save it, so you could say he was not interfering with play or an opponent because he wasn't doing this 'at the time the ball was kicked', however-was he seeking to gain an advantage? ~Yes
Offside, end of!
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.
A player is in an offside position if:
• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent
A player is not in an offside position if:
• he is in his own half of the field of play or
• he is level with the second-last opponent or
• he is level with the last two opponents
Offence:
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
No offence:
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:
• a goal kick
• a throw-in
• a corner kick
This is the offside law, there is nothing to say you are not interfering with play after a deflection. The point of conjecture here is that Gallas was clearly in an offside position (though not necessarily commiting an offside offence) and the ref has interpreted it as the player was neither interfering with play, another player or gaining an advantage by being in that position.
I/f with another player, debatable, gaining an advantage by being in that position, likely, but what is 'gaining an advantage as just by being in an offside position you are gaining an advantage unless you are slowly walking back towards your own goal and don't take part in the cuurrent or any secondary moves from that attack.
The FA don't make the laws, FIFA do! There are no new laws for 2010-2011 although the downloadable booklet from FIFA is labelled as 2010- 2011. The current laws came into foorce 28th February 2009.
So, to sum up this scenario, Gallas was in an offside position and distracted the keeper after the ball was kicked by Huddlestone but, as Schwarzer attempted to save it, so you could say he was not interfering with play or an opponent because he wasn't doing this 'at the time the ball was kicked', however-was he seeking to gain an advantage? ~Yes
Offside, end of!
Dave Ewing's Back 'eader
Well-Known Member
dave_blue12 said:
It states, amongst other things, this: gaining an advantage by being in that position.
It should be clear to anybody that Gallas is not there looking for a spare shinpad.
The distraction of Schwarzer on your part is pure conjecture though... they showed Huddlestones shot and Gallas is nowhere near his eyeline as the shot was taken, the deflection as it happens is what may have caught Schwarzer out...... unless Schwarzer was looking at Gallas and not the ball.......
Carver
Well-Known Member
Mooney I wasn't contradicting your post there, I was still writing as you posted.
note.. where it says 'touching' this is from the attacking side, not the defending side, if it's an attacker's deflection it counts, if it's a defender's it doesn't.
-- Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:12 pm --
Marcspurs... yes, my point on distraction is conjecture and it's in the opinion of the ref that he wasn't distracting him, so fair point, however, I maintain that he was seeking to gain an advantage which you cannot possibly deny.
Offside!
note.. where it says 'touching' this is from the attacking side, not the defending side, if it's an attacker's deflection it counts, if it's a defender's it doesn't.
-- Sun Oct 17, 2010 1:12 pm --
Marcspurs... yes, my point on distraction is conjecture and it's in the opinion of the ref that he wasn't distracting him, so fair point, however, I maintain that he was seeking to gain an advantage which you cannot possibly deny.
Offside!