Prev: "Lord of War" Unsophisticated Prediction Contest
Next: The Best World Cup RSS *contest* so far (bicycle kick now worth 3)
From: Futbolmetrix on 16 Jun 2010 12:57 On Jun 16, 7:44 pm, Futbolmetrix <futbolmet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > A better example is Wiltord's goal against Denmark in Euro 2000, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TJ4JY1exB8&feature=related around minute 9:00 By the way, I am strongly opposed to the "an offside position should always be sanctioned" view. A player tying his shoelaces near the corner flag should not be called offside under any reasonable view of the Law, and a player walking towards midfield and not participating in play is most definitely not interfering with play. You should give even more discretion to the ref to decide whether a player is interfering with play (I think the Wiltord and RVN examples are good examples of goals that should have been disallowed). Since it's almost impossible to establish "interfering with play" in real time, have video replays. D
From: HASM on 16 Jun 2010 13:01 Huw Morris <no(a)spam.please> writes: > By liberalising the interpretation to say a player is only offside if he > actually touches the ball is making the game worse. FIFA doesn't claim that a player is only offside if/when he touches the ball. The 2010/2011 book is available on line. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2010_11_e.pdf Law 11 is pretty much the same it was 10 years ago and the Offense section reads (page 31): 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 Last year (or the previous one) they expanded the book by having the directives/interpretations appended to it, and on page 100, they state: Definitions In the context of Law 11 â Offside, the following definitions apply: - "nearer to his opponents' goal line" means that any part of a player's head, body or feet is nearer to his opponentsâ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition - "interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate - "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 - "gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position So, of the last three points, which deal with "gaining an advantage" the second "interfering with an opponent" means one can be offside without touching the ball. > My point is that how referees have been instructed to *interpret* > that law has changed drastically over the last 20 years. Maybe 20 years back, but when I took my first refereeing course, about 15 years ago, those last three points weren't there in writing but in spirit, and already practiced around where I refereed. The first point, defining "nearer to his opponents" is really the only thing new, as there were different interpretations depending on the confederations, and they changed through the years. -- HASM
From: Futbolmetrix on 16 Jun 2010 13:05 On Jun 16, 4:44 pm, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote: > > That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is > having a detrimental effect at this tournament. I doubt it. The new interpretation/directive has been in place for quite a while now, and this is the first tournament where there's been such a dramatic collapse in goals per game. In domestic leagues and in the CL the goal per game ratio is much higher. D
From: Futbolmetrix on 16 Jun 2010 13:12 On Jun 16, 8:01 pm, HASM <netn...(a)invalid.com> wrote: > - "interfering with play" means playing or touching the ball passed or > touched by a team-mate > - "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 > - "gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball > that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an > offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent > having been in an offside position Right. But consider the following example: the ball is played in the direction of attacking players A and B. A is not in an offside position, but B is. A gets to the ball first and scores. As you can see, this example does not fall under any of the descriptions given by FIFA. Before the new directives, player B was typically deemed to be interfering with play, and the goal would be disallowed. Under the new directives, many refs would (and do) let the goal stand. Even more deceptive is the Wiltord/RVN case described in the other post. D
From: 7h on 16 Jun 2010 13:19
On Jun 16, 1:05 pm, Futbolmetrix <futbolmet...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 4:44 pm, Huw Morris <n...(a)spam.please> wrote: > > > > > That is no longer the case, and I think this is what is > > having a detrimental effect at this tournament. > > I doubt it. The new interpretation/directive has been in place for > quite a while now, and this is the first tournament where there's been > such a dramatic collapse in goals per game. In domestic leagues and in > the CL the goal per game ratio is much higher. > > D Perhaps because the clubs have more time to drill their offside traps -- and they use it more (for other tactical considerations as well). Less well drilled national teams choose the safe option. |