25 pages and counting....

[Rufusabc]

I've been on the board for awhile now, and I was looking back to see if anything was even remotely close to the 25 pages of discussion we are having on the player off the field offside decision...and NOTHING comes even half way close in length.

Fo those of us on the "good call" side of the argument, I don't think it is possible to convince those on the "bad call" side about our reasons why, and vice versa. At some point both the boys in Chicago and our friends in Switzerland will send a position paper out on the subject. And then those of us who are refs will be left to call the game as the powers have decried, and those of you who aren't refs will continue to make your arguments.

It's a logical decision which has ramifications beyond that game. That's why the defender off the field ruling is on the books in the first place.

R

[MassachusettsRef]

The Zidane World Cup thread in 2006 beat it by a mile, if I recall correctly.

[DerbyRam54]

Wait till we consider whether schizophrenic players can substitute for themselves...

[Spaceball]

The Zidane World Cup thread in 2006 beat it by a mile, if I recall correctly.

But, in that thread no one was arguing the merit of the call...just if the officials used the video board to get it.

The similarity between the two threads is that people want to keep arguing for no reason. In the Zidane thread, it was reported and confirmed that the incident was not shown on the video board in the stadium prior to the referee's actions, yet people that weren't there still were adamant that this was how the referees got it right. In this case people are arguing that despite overwhelming evidence and confirmation from authorities throughout the world that the correct call was made, the referees were still wrong, or more incredulously that they blew the call and lucked in to being right...even though players admit it was explained to them immediately on the pitch.

[MassachusettsRef]

I believe that, in the Zidane thread, initially we also were debating about whether or not Elizondo had the right to go back and issue the send off since he had already restarted play. That got cleared up pretty quickly (after a few pages), but at least at the beginning of the thread there was a very fuzzy issue--even for a lot of referees.

[MassachusettsRef]

For reference: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=380461

[Rufusabc]

yep....I never bothered to discuss the Zindane thing because I thought it was so cut and dried. But yes, it does lead the legue in replies, but this is the most contentious by far.

[gosellit]

It looks to me that the "non-referee" and the " I'm a ref, too" folks were the ones continuing to fuel the debate. It also seemed to be it was based on emotion. The " referees" on the thread looked at the: facts of the play, the LOTG and additional instruction and guidance to make their decision.

[Spaceball]

I believe that, in the Zidane thread, initially we also were debating about whether or not Elizondo had the right to go back and issue the send off since he had already restarted play. That got cleared up pretty quickly (after a few pages), but at least at the beginning of the thread there was a very fuzzy issue--even for a lot of referees.

I agree and was one that was fuzzy on the issue. My point was that the real debate on both subjects could have ended pages earlier. Both topics were worthy of threads and discussion as there were fine points of the laws to be discussed, but those issues have been well dissected and the correct conclusions reached in a few pages. The rest of the threads is people looking to argue for the sake of argument with little concern for whether they or right or wrong.

[PVancouver]

For me there are two important issues concerning the van Nistelrooy goal:

1) Why did so many people, including people who should not be naive, believe that offside should have been called?

2) What can be done to reduce the number of people who might think offside should be called on a similar play in the future?

A third, much less important issue for me is, but maybe not for others, is:

3) Should the law indeed be interpreted or written so that the goal should have in fact been ruled offside.

There are lots of good reasons for 25 pages of discussion.

[Ref Flunkie]

Basically it comes down to the fact that the longer threads typically come from events happening in an international tournament as it brings down a lot of folks who don't usually frequent this area of BS. The more people you have contributing to a thread, the longer it will be because they wall want to get their 2 cents in and reply to all the replies. Adds up quickly. The offside thread should not have lasted half as long as it has.

[IASocFan]

FIRST PAGE! ;)

Sorry, I just felt I had an important contribution!

[GOOOOAL!!]

FIRST PAGE! ;)

Sorry, I just felt I had an important contribution!

Missed it by <......> that much!

[Tarheel Ref]

I believe that, in the Zidane thread, initially we also were debating about whether or not Elizondo had the right to go back and issue the send off since he had already restarted play. That got cleared up pretty quickly (after a few pages), but at least at the beginning of the thread there was a very fuzzy issue--even for a lot of referees.

Thanks for posting the link...I've got a lot of unexpressed opinions on this but would like to ' "think" ---> then ---> "post" ' before doing something stupid...

Could anyone who knows post a link to either an ongoing discussion about this or an appropriate blog...I don't want to dig up a topic on this forum that will just cause more problems (plus I need a little more education on thread titles LOL :rolleyes:)

Basically it comes down to the fact that the longer threads typically come from events happening in an international tournament as it brings down a lot of folks who don't usually frequent this area of BS. The more people you have contributing to a thread, the longer it will be because they wall want to get their 2 cents in and reply to all the replies. Adds up quickly. The offside thread should not have lasted half as long as it has.

Not trying to beat my own drum (OK maybe a little...) but I think I saw this coming....

It took me FOREVER to find my post somewhere in the middle of all that:

http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=14845068&postcount=129

[bluedevils]

is this the first thread in the Ref forum that was created solely to talk about another thread?!

[Falc]

As I just wrote on the counting thread, if the AR raises his flag and the referee calls off the goal, then there would be no long thread. :D

[IASocFan]

As I just wrote on the counting thread, if the AR raises his flag and the referee calls off the goal, then there would be no long thread. :D

I doubt it. There still would have been a controversy. I knew it was onside as soon as I saw Panucci behind the goal line.

[Gary V]

As I just wrote on the counting thread, if the AR raises his flag and the referee calls off the goal, then there would be no long thread. :DNot even after the game was successfully protested for Misapplication of the Laws of the Game?

[MassachusettsRef]

Not even after the game was successfully protested for Misapplication of the Laws of the Game?Since the issue in question isn't found in the Laws themselves, and it involves interpretation, I don't think you're right here.

This would be like saying a game should be replayed because a referee didn't correctly sanction a clear and obvious DOGSO.

[Gary V]

Is it referee judgement if he admits he's basing the call on the 3rd to last defender, or is that misapplication?

I realize a cleverly written report could make it non-protestable: "I didn't judge him to be in an offside position when the ball was last touched by a teammate."

But then we also have the refreshing report of another referee admitting his offside mistake. In that case (commenting without having seen it), that's all it was, a mistake in judgement, so not protestable.

In any event, Netherlands would undoubtably have learned from Uzbekistan to not protest a game they had won.