Offside!!!!

[Toby Ward-Smith]

Cost us for the second time this season: their striker who went for the ball was miles offside and this cost us 3 massive points. This cost again like Rodallega's goal disallowed at Millwall. These 2 massive mistakes could cost us dearly, possibly sending us down. However for the goal last night it may of been offside but it doesn't mean you stop playing, it's what you are taught in your early years of football and the defence and keeper were guilty of stopping. Husband just allowed their player to tap it in. Anyway onto Wigan, lets support the lads like we did yesterday!

[rweller86]

Can't blame the goalkeeper for 'stopping' for their goal last night, he had to remain on his line as he expected the offside player to reach the ball (hence interfering, and should have been ruled offside)

[Chesh]

Yep, if Betinelli hadn't have stood there appealing against the bloke in the middle, he would have had a chance to cover the resultant shot (instead of leaving an open goal).

Play to the bloody whistle!!   fp.gif

[Lighthouse]

The offside rule is a joke and spoils the game. I have always said I prefer the old rule. But to wait until a player touches the ball is stupid and the officials are inconsistent in their interpretation of the rule. 

[rweller86]

Yep, if Betinelli hadn't have stood there appealing against the bloke in the middle, he would have had a chance to cover the resultant shot (instead of leaving an open goal).

Play to the bloody whistle!!   fp.gif

By the time the ball passed the offside player, it would have been a split second for Betts to get to the ball 6/7 yards away... The ball was moving with a bit of pace, he had no chance of getting there. If he gambled on the offside player missing the ball, went to collect it but the offside player got to the ball, he'd have been ridiculed for it...

[Cravenawin]

Yep, if Betinelli hadn't have stood there appealing against the bloke in the middle, he would have had a chance to cover the resultant shot (instead of leaving an open goal).



Play to the bloody whistle!!   fp.gif

By the time the ball passed the offside player, it would have been a split second for Betts to get to the ball 6/7 yards away... The ball was moving with a bit of pace, he had no chance of getting there. If he gambled on the offside player missing the ball, went to collect it but the offside player got to the ball, he'd have been ridiculed for it...

Not really as the flag would surely have been raised if the offside player got to the ball first, or maybe not judging by the standard of officials this season.

[elgreenio]

I struggle to find any angle from which I can blame Betts for this, didnt have a chance. Completely with rweller on this one

[Rhys Lightning 63]

I think even if he played to the whistle, he wasn't getting there. Better play by whoever was picking up the goalscorer would be my criticism

[rweller86]

Yep, if Betinelli hadn't have stood there appealing against the bloke in the middle, he would have had a chance to cover the resultant shot (instead of leaving an open goal).



Play to the bloody whistle!!   fp.gif

By the time the ball passed the offside player, it would have been a split second for Betts to get to the ball 6/7 yards away... The ball was moving with a bit of pace, he had no chance of getting there. If he gambled on the offside player missing the ball, went to collect it but the offside player got to the ball, he'd have been ridiculed for it...

Not really as the flag would surely have been raised if the offside player got to the ball first, or maybe not judging by the standard of officials this season.

The flag should have been raised as he tried to play the ball and the goal disallowed. It doesn't matter if he touched the ball or not, he's interfering with Betts' perception (preventing him from deciding to come out for the ball). It's like a player standing in an offside position in the way of the keeper's line of sight, by the law of the game, this is offside.

[nose]

the officials have no clue, this was a clear offside by any reading of the rules....

[westcliff white]

Yep he was offside for sure, but you have to play to the whistle, agree Betts may have stopped it if he had not have stood appealing for the offside, but its a harsh criticism.

For the record I thought Rodders was just offside (very tight deicsion) against Millwall.

[nose]

Yep he was offside for sure, but you have to play to the whistle, agree Betts may have stopped it if he had not have stood appealing for the offside, but its a harsh criticism.

For the record I thought Rodders was just offside (very tight deicsion) against Millwall.

the problem with offside is you trend to stop to make sure the player is caught, the goalkeeper had no chance

[westcliff white]

Yep he was offside for sure, but you have to play to the whistle, agree Betts may have stopped it if he had not have stood appealing for the offside, but its a harsh criticism.

For the record I thought Rodders was just offside (very tight deicsion) against Millwall.

the problem with offside is you trend to stop to make sure the player is caught, the goalkeeper had no chance

thats why I say its a harsh criticism.

[rweller86]

Yep he was offside for sure, but you have to play to the whistle, agree Betts may have stopped it if he had not have stood appealing for the offside, but its a harsh criticism.

For the record I thought Rodders was just offside (very tight deicsion) against Millwall.

I doubt he would have stopped it, he was at his near post, the ball went in at the far post.

[alfie]

The offside rule is a joke and spoils the game. I have always said I prefer the old rule. But to wait until a player touches the ball is stupid and the officials are inconsistent in their interpretation of the rule. 

:plus one:

[Chesh]

Yep he was offside for sure, but you have to play to the whistle, agree Betts may have stopped it if he had not have stood appealing for the offside, but its a harsh criticism.

For the record I thought Rodders was just offside (very tight deicsion) against Millwall.

I doubt he would have stopped it, he was at his near post, the ball went in at the far post.

On reflection, maybe it looked worse 'live' than it admittedly does on the replays from Bett's point of view, but i was thinking more of a chance to dive and block as opposed to having time to come and collect the ball.

Note I say chance (outside one though it may have been).

I totally agree though with the fact that the offside law is a complete mess.

If you are offside (regardless of whether you are interfering with play) you should be offside. This should be balanced up by bringing back the requirement for 'daylight', as opposed to the ridiculous 'any part of the body that can be used to score a goal, even if a tiny fraction'.

The current law, or interpretation of it, is totally and unnecessary complicated imho.

[westcliff white]

Agree chesh, as it stands any part of the body you can score with that is in advance of the defender make syou offside, in the rodders case i reckon his head made him offside. Where as last night the whole of the striker was offside

[Nero]

to be far they did even it up by missing an open goal

[westcliff white]

they did yes.