Chelsea-Arsenal [R]

[blackjack]

Regarding the offside decision on the first Arsenal goal...

It seems that Van Persie was offside. But ARs and referees do miss calls. What I'm wondering is how the Sky announcers, who have been around the game for years and years and years, can be so wrong as to think that simply because the pass clipped a Chelsea player's boot on the way through that there can be no offside on the play.

If anyone disagrees that the play was offside, I'd love to hear why. But more importantly, can anyone speak to how the announcers could possibly be so thick-headed? Not offside because the pass was deflected by an opposing player? Have they only been watching football for a day? Was there once such a rule?

[chaoslord08]

Regarding the offside decision on the first Arsenal goal...

It seems that Van Persie was offside. But ARs and referees do miss calls. What I'm wondering is how the Sky announcers, who have been around the game for years and years and years, can be so wrong as to think that simply because the pass clipped a Chelsea player's boot on the way through that there can be no offside on the play.

If anyone disagrees that the play was offside, I'd love to hear why. But more importantly, can anyone speak to how the announcers could possibly be so thick-headed? Not offside because the pass was deflected by an opposing player? Have they only been watching football for a day? Was there once such a rule?

My theory on that is they think that since offside requires the ball to be played by a teammate, a deflection would mean it was no longer played directly by a teammate and so its no longer offside

[GOOOOAL!!]

Regarding the offside decision on the first Arsenal goal...

It seems that Van Persie was offside. But ARs and referees do miss calls. What I'm wondering is how the Sky announcers, who have been around the game for years and years and years, can be so wrong as to think that simply because the pass clipped a Chelsea player's boot on the way through that there can be no offside on the play.

If anyone disagrees that the play was offside, I'd love to hear why. But more importantly, can anyone speak to how the announcers could possibly be so thick-headed? Not offside because the pass was deflected by an opposing player? Have they only been watching football for a day? Was there once such a rule?

I haven't seen a good replay that shows it, but the referee is pointing to the defender in the right back position that MAY have kept him on side. The defender was running up the field and the attacker was moving forward. A good replay is needed to see if the call was right.

As far as there ever being a law about a deflection keeping a player on side, I don't think there was one, but that doesn't keep the misinterpretation of the current laws out of the press box, on the field, or the sidelines. Some seem to take the "played by a teammate" part of the law incorrectly. They believe that if a defender touches the ball then it is played by them and thus it is OK to receive it in the OS position. Having the ball go out of play direction being one way and the OS law being different seems to confuse them.

It's also confusing that a deflection by an attacker counts as "played" by them, but a deflection by a defender doesn't count the same.

[Englishref]

I have to say, I didn't hear the Sky commentators (provided they are the same ones) suggesting it was onside. It was certainly condemned post-match by all the pundits.

Unfortunately, John Stokes didn't cover himself in glory today, with two very controversial, incorrect offside decisions.

I did think Mike Dean had a very good game though. Could maybe have cautioned one or two players earlier than he did, and Terry was perhaps lucky, but he's tied to FA directives on that sort of tackle, so had to give yellow. Contributed to a good game I thought. :cool:

[bart699]

The announcers never said Arsenal was not in an offside position but the one (Andy Gray?) continued to bolster the chance it hit a Chelsea player in the jersey, foot et al. Mind you not once bending his conclusion for no offside call by saying it was directed back intentionally. He had plenty of chances (since he said it "could" have hit Chelsea player over and over) to clarify but did not.

In my mind this clearly showed his ignorance. And he's supposed to be one of Englands best pundits? Really aggravating.

[blackjack]

The announcers never said Arsenal was not in an offside position but the one (Andy Gray?) continued to bolster the chance it hit a Chelsea player in the jersey, foot et al. Mind you not once bending his conclusion for no offside call by saying it was directed back intentionally. He had plenty of chances (since he said it "could" have hit Chelsea player over and over) to clarify but did not.

In my mind this clearly showed his ignorance. And he's supposed to be one of Englands best pundits? Really aggravating.

My mistake about the announcers in question. I was watching on a feed that I assumed was being taken from Sky. The offending party was Robbie Earl. He said "it's hit Ashley Cole's boot, and once that's happened there is no question of offside" or something very like that.

[Xarbitro]

Regarding the offside decision on the first Arsenal goal...

It seems that Van Persie was offside. But ARs and referees do miss calls. What I'm wondering is how the Sky announcers, who have been around the game for years and years and years, can be so wrong as to think that simply because the pass clipped a Chelsea player's boot on the way through that there can be no offside on the play.

If anyone disagrees that the play was offside, I'd love to hear why. But more importantly, can anyone speak to how the announcers could possibly be so thick-headed? Not offside because the pass was deflected by an opposing player? Have they only been watching football for a day? Was there once such a rule?

You are so right about the announcers being totally ignorant of the offside rule. These guys make a living announcing these games, so there's no excuse for not knowing such a basic part of the offside rule. At least the guy on the FSC studio post-game show mentioned that a deflection would not affect the call. I wish he would have been much harder on his media colleague across the pond.

[Kazuma]

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q307/villa23/Picture1.png

[Mambo123]

Fact is Chelsea had 1 shot on target, creating nothing vs Liverpool, and needed a 83rd minute equalizer against Manu to get the draw.

1/9 points at home vs the other big 4 this year and totally bereft of ideas against any defence that isn't in the bottom 8 of the table.

[Kazuma]

Fact is Chelsea had 1 shot on target, creating nothing vs Liverpool, and needed a 83rd minute equalizer against Manu to get the draw.

1/9 points at home vs the other big 4 this year and totally bereft of ideas against any defence that isn't in the bottom 8 of the table.

Wrong forum.

[code1390]

I want to write in an email to World Soccer Daily which I think Robbie Earle will be on tomorrow quoting Law 11, but chances are it won't be read so I won't bother.

[DWickham]

The answer is 1996.

The changes to the offside law in 1995 required that the defender play (not touch) the ball to reset offside position. A deflection after 1996 is not enough. (Recall, however, that in the last world cup a defender's slide tackle was found to be a play on the ball.)

Thus, announcers who retired before 1996 may be uninformed. Those who retired after 1996 and still think this are ignorant.

[Guy Fawkes]

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q307/villa23/Picture1.png


Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

poor thing.

[AlsoRan]

It's also confusing that a deflection by an attacker counts as "played" by them, but a deflection by a defender doesn't count the same.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...
In the case of a deflection that ball is touched by a teammate, not "played". But granted, there is some asymmetry.

[Rufusabc]

Assymetry? What exactly are you saying? I'm confused?

Anyway, what in God's name was the referee doing pointing to the player who he thought played V. Persie onside to begin with?

[gosya]

You know, I came on these boards to write exactly the same thing. In my understanding, van Persie is only NOT offside if a Chelsea player makes a deliberate and cognizant contact with the ball, not b/c it accidentally touches him. Am I wrong?

It seems to me that if the announcers' interpretation of the rule is correct, then a team could build a whole strategy around placing forwards offside, and sending the ball sharply to them, in hopes of the ball clipping a defender beforehand.

Simply put, at the time of the deliberate forward pass, van Persie was offside - an accidental touch/clip does not change that. Are we (the previous poster and myself) both wrong?

[code1390]

You know, I came on these boards to write exactly the same thing. In my understanding, van Persie is only NOT offside if a Chelsea player makes a deliberate and cognizant contact with the ball, not b/c it accidentally touches him. Am I wrong?


You are correct. A deflection off the defense does not reset offside. Robbie Earle was wrong.

[OldAndNew]

http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q307/villa23/Picture1.png

How do you add an image to these responses if they are not in a URL?

I have one I'd like to add in another thread.

[refmedic]

You know, I came on these boards to write exactly the same thing. In my understanding, van Persie is only NOT offside if a Chelsea player makes a deliberate and cognizant contact with the ball, not b/c it accidentally touches him. Am I wrong?

US Soccer Advice to Referees Section 11.14 "Becoming Onside",

A player's offside position must be reevaluated whenever:

1. The ball is again touched or played by a teammate,

2. A player's offside position must be reevaluated whenever the ball is played (possessed and controlled, not simply deflected) my an opponent, including the goalkeeper, or

3. The ball goes out of play.

Van Persie was in an offside position when the ball was last played by a teammate. The Chelsea defender would have had to possess and control, not simply deflect the ball for Van Persie's offside position to be reevaluated, and be subsequently declared onside.

[billf]

The announcers never said Arsenal was not in an offside position but the one (Andy Gray?) continued to bolster the chance it hit a Chelsea player in the jersey, foot et al. Mind you not once bending his conclusion for no offside call by saying it was directed back intentionally. He had plenty of chances (since he said it "could" have hit Chelsea player over and over) to clarify but did not.

In my mind this clearly showed his ignorance. And he's supposed to be one of Englands best pundits? Really aggravating.

We don't hear the Sky announcers we get a more generic international feed and they most certainly butchered the analysis on this play unfortunately.