You Are The Ref

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Can someone please find me a link for Tom Huddlestone's goal for Spurs v Fulham? I'd like to ope the debate about interfering with play.

Huddlestone shoots from 25 yards out. The ball goes into the net, gone across the goalkeeper's body. William Gallas is in a slight offside position, six yards out, level with the centre of goal. He does not touch the ball, although he makes a move towards the ball.

My view - goal should not stand. Gallas is clearly interfering with play, as he makes an attempt to play the ball having been in an offside position where the 'keeper could be influenced by his position.

Zulu - please confirm. Anyone else - please add.

[truewhite15]

Can someone please find me a link for Tom Huddlestone's goal for Spurs v Fulham? I'd like to ope the debate about interfering with play.

Huddlestone shoots from 25 yards out. The ball goes into the net, gone across the goalkeeper's body. William Gallas is in a slight offside position, six yards out, level with the centre of goal. He does not touch the ball, although he makes a move towards the ball.

My view - goal should not stand. Gallas is clearly interfering with play, as he makes an attempt to play the ball having been in an offside position where the 'keeper could be influenced by his position.

Zulu - please confirm. Anyone else - please add.

Nahhh. IMO that goal is fair. Gallas doesn't touch the ball and is nowhere near impeding the view of the keeper. If Gallas touches it, the only place it's gonna go is closer to Schwarzer anyway. Goal.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Can someone please find me a link for Tom Huddlestone's goal for Spurs v Fulham? I'd like to ope the debate about interfering with play.

Huddlestone shoots from 25 yards out. The ball goes into the net, gone across the goalkeeper's body. William Gallas is in a slight offside position, six yards out, level with the centre of goal. He does not touch the ball, although he makes a move towards the ball.

My view - goal should not stand. Gallas is clearly interfering with play, as he makes an attempt to play the ball having been in an offside position where the 'keeper could be influenced by his position.

Zulu - please confirm. Anyone else - please add.

Nahhh. IMO that goal is fair. Gallas doesn't touch the ball and is nowhere near impeding the view of the keeper. If Gallas touches it, the only place it's gonna go is closer to Schwarzer anyway. Goal.

But if he got the touch he was intending to get, what would you say? Would it still be a goal?

The consensus among refs over the past couple of years, in my experience, have been that if an attacker makes a move towards getting the ball, then he's interfering with play. Not sure on the exact FIFA wording on it - I think they just talk about being "active", in which case Gallas is, having attempted to play the ball having been the closest to it.

[CAPSLOCK]

KB

My under 12s are playing offsides this year

Fist half dozen games I've been on at the defenders to get a line but now they can do it themselves

They catch lads over and over again

Its been suggested offsides are intended just to prevent 'goal hanging'

My view is if we play offsides we do it properly and defending is as much a part of the game as scoring goals

[truewhite15]

Can someone please find me a link for Tom Huddlestone's goal for Spurs v Fulham? I'd like to ope the debate about interfering with play.

Huddlestone shoots from 25 yards out. The ball goes into the net, gone across the goalkeeper's body. William Gallas is in a slight offside position, six yards out, level with the centre of goal. He does not touch the ball, although he makes a move towards the ball.

My view - goal should not stand. Gallas is clearly interfering with play, as he makes an attempt to play the ball having been in an offside position where the 'keeper could be influenced by his position.

Zulu - please confirm. Anyone else - please add.

Nahhh. IMO that goal is fair. Gallas doesn't touch the ball and is nowhere near impeding the view of the keeper. If Gallas touches it, the only place it's gonna go is closer to Schwarzer anyway. Goal.

But if he got the touch he was intending to get, what would you say? Would it still be a goal?

The consensus among refs over the past couple of years, in my experience, have been that if an attacker makes a move towards getting the ball, then he's interfering with play. Not sure on the exact FIFA wording on it - I think they just talk about being "active", in which case Gallas is, having attempted to play the ball having been the closest to it.

If he got the touch, then yes, he would rightly have been offside. But the facts that the ball didn't change direction, Schwarzer wasn't impeded and was already in full flight towards where the ball was going when it passed Gallas all point towards a correct call for a goal. IMO, of course.

[Athers]

I'd class Gallas as active - he's trying to kick the ball into the goal after all and misses by an inch... so I'd disallow the goal, sorry Huddlestone..

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Having seen it a couple of times now - from a couple of angles and in slo-mo, I would have ruled it offside.

Bu the referee only saw it once - from one angle and in real time.

And that's the crux of the matter. It always is, whether the referee gets it right or wrong.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

KB

My under 12s are playing offsides this year

Fist half dozen games I've been on at the defenders to get a line but now they can do it themselves

They catch lads over and over again

Its been suggested offsides are intended just to prevent 'goal hanging'

My view is if we play offsides we do it properly and defending is as much a part of the game as scoring goals

The last line of your post is the most pinpoint.

At Under 12, they're now at the age where they need to be au fait, and where it is the most important (but not first) opportunity to develop their positional sense when their team don't have the ball. Offsides should be included in this.

The offside trap is a good tool, but a bad habit. If you get what I mean. You're catching players out because they've not been coached to react to the trap. Once they do, it could look embarrassing. All I will advise is that you do the odd session on what to do, and how to read, if a striker is switched on to the trap - it might work now, but if you want to develop the players' long term development well, their awareness of this is vital.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Having seen it a couple of times now - from a couple of angles and in slo-mo, I would have ruled it offside.

Bu the referee only saw it once - from one angle and in real time.

And that's the crux of the matter. It always is, whether the referee gets it right or wrong.

Damn right.

But what would the ref be checking with his lino on this case? Whether or not Gallas was offside?

Why did you need more than one viewing of it before making your decision?

Is Gallas' position automatically making him "active" - ie, is he already in the 'keeper's sight by standing offside in the middle of the goal?

[truewhite15]

Having seen it a couple of times now - from a couple of angles and in slo-mo, I would have ruled it offside.

Bu the referee only saw it once - from one angle and in real time.

And that's the crux of the matter. It always is, whether the referee gets it right or wrong.

Damn right.

But what would the ref be checking with his lino on this case? Whether or not Gallas was offside?

Why did you need more than one viewing of it before making your decision?

Is Gallas' position automatically making him "active" - ie, is he already in the 'keeper's sight by standing offside in the middle of the goal?

I think that the referee instantly saw that the deflection had come from Baird - the Lino flagged for Gallas as being in an offside position, which, of course, he was. The question then immediately became whether Gallas had touched the ball on the way through. The ref wasn't sure, so he questioned the Lino, who said non. Thus, as the referee had seen that Gallas was not interfering with play apart from a possible touch, the goal was allowed.
I think.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

Having seen it a couple of times now - from a couple of angles and in slo-mo, I would have ruled it offside.

Bu the referee only saw it once - from one angle and in real time.

And that's the crux of the matter. It always is, whether the referee gets it right or wrong.

Damn right.

But what would the ref be checking with his lino on this case? Whether or not Gallas was offside?

Why did you need more than one viewing of it before making your decision?

Is Gallas' position automatically making him "active" - ie, is he already in the 'keeper's sight by standing offside in the middle of the goal?

I think that the referee instantly saw that the deflection had come from Baird - the Lino flagged for Gallas as being in an offside position, which, of course, he was. The question then immediately became whether Gallas had touched the ball on the way through. The ref wasn't sure, so he questioned the Lino, who said non. Thus, as the referee had seen that Gallas was not interfering with play apart from a possible touch, the goal was allowed.
I think.

Your answer, which makes sense, makes me need to ask our qualified ref - what ACTUALLY constitutes a player being "active"? Is it touching the ball, or making an attempt to play the ball (which Gallas did), or is it being in a position to give an opponent immediate cause for concern that the ball is played to them (poorly worded, but the sentiment is if an opponent is affected by their position as the ball is coming towards them)?

If the lino had flagged for offside, and he made an attempt to play the ball, I think the deflection is irrelevant - the ball was played forward, after all. I'm thinking the question marks come from how "active" Gallas was. Which, as he made an attempt, makes me think he's as active as anything.

And this thread goes to show exactly how ambiguous the offside rule is, which is more or less my point. We've now had three different interpretations of the same thing, and two different decisions!

[Prufrock]

Alan Shearer being a bell spouting ill-informed shite said he didn't touch it so he isn't offside, and he isn't in the line of vision.

Key phrase for me, in the FIFA guidelines,

“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"

It's the last sentence for me. Gallas has had a swing at it, and therefore, for me, should be offside. I can see why he has given it though, in that Schwarzer had already dived, but at that speed and that distance I think it must have had an effect.

As an aside on ref's decisions, couple of shockers today. Wilshere's shouldn't be a red card. All this talk of the 'current climate', which apart from being a b*llocks phrase is meaningless. Foul and booking, yes. Straight red? Give o'er. Klasnic today, first one lucky 'in the current climate', second one, utter balls. There were probably more. Chamakh for example. Piquionne. The shithouses.

[H. Pedersen]

Huddlestone is in my fantasy team, so I think the goal should stand.

[Verbal]

I'll have to admit, from the replays, Gallas didn't even look offside.... [/canofworms]

[Zulus Thousand of em]

Having seen it a couple of times now - from a couple of angles and in slo-mo, I would have ruled it offside.

Bu the referee only saw it once - from one angle and in real time.

And that's the crux of the matter. It always is, whether the referee gets it right or wrong.

Damn right.

But what would the ref be checking with his lino on this case? Whether or not Gallas was offside?

He would be asking why he had flagged -what had he seen?

Why did you need more than one viewing of it before making your decision?

I didn't. Watching it in real time I thought "That's offside." That initial thought, allied to the assistant's raised flag would have been enough for me to rule out the goal. I had the luxury of slo-mo and different angles on the TV so I took the opportunity to use the angles. I would still have disallowed the goal, I think.

Is Gallas' position automatically making him "active" - ie, is he already in the 'keeper's sight by standing offside in the middle of the goal?

Again, in my view, Gallas is in the keeper's line of sight and that makes him active in my interpretation of the Law.

[Zulus Thousand of em]

One other thing that fans don't appreciate, I know I didn't until I started refereeing games, is the difference a bit of height makes.

If you are watching the game on TV or at the stadium you are always looking down on the action. That could be from five feet or fifty feet. You get a far better view of the overall action than you do as a referee or assistant. They are at ground level and frequently looking through a number of intervening players. You cannot change that and I don't want to change it. It's a factor though.

At the top level in England I genuinely believe that our referees are competent and they are certainly honest. Indeed they make mistakes - but not as many as Alan Shearer, Andy Gray and other pundits - none of whom has an acceptable understanding of the Laws of the Game given the money they get paid.

[seanworth]

My interpretation is if the the keeper has to show respect to a player who is offside then that player is offside. If Gallas is in a position on the field that the keeper must pay attention to him as a potential target to receive the ball then the goal should not stand.

That is why I would like the offside rule changed dramatically. I would like play to continue no matter where a player is positioned, and each goal then immediately reviewed by vdo. If a play is offside then the goal doesn't stand and it is a free kick. That stops the bad calls when players are incorrectly ruled offside, and it allows the game to flow better which is what people want. Mind you I doubt many others share my radical view.

[Bruce Rioja]

My interpretation is if the the keeper has to show respect to a player who is offside then that player is offside. If Gallas is in a position on the field that the keeper must pay attention to him as a potential target to receive the ball then the goal should not stand.

Gallas was nowhere near Schwartzer's line of vision, he simply couldn't get to Huddlestone's shot. Perfectly good goal, for me.

[Bruce Rioja]

OK, 'You Are The Ref' at this afternoon's Blackpool v City game. Blackpool score a goal but because a guy that didn't interfere with play one iota had one foot in an offside position the goal is disallwed. Then, Tevez scores for City whilst obviously in an offside positon. If 'You are the ref' then you are Phil Dowd, and you are a wanker.

[malcd1]

My interpretation is if the the keeper has to show respect to a player who is offside then that player is offside. If Gallas is in a position on the field that the keeper must pay attention to him as a potential target to receive the ball then the goal should not stand.

Gallas was nowhere near Schwartzer's line of vision, he simply couldn't get to Huddlestone's shot. Perfectly good goal, for me.

Same opinion. Gallas was not in the line of vision. IMO the goal was correctly awarded.

Now in the Everton / Liverpool game today Arteta scored a similar goal to the Huddlestone one. This time Yakubu was in direct line of the goalkeeper (As well as 4 other players) and in an offside position. The goal was given but I don't think it should have been (See link below from 1 min 20 secs). On second thoughts they were playing Liverpool so correct decision.

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodispl ... l-7234200/