I am putting this in a neutral forum, because I want to hear people who literally have no bias for this. What do you think of this? Is it a goal or an offside?
That's where I stand too. He didn't obviously obstruct the keeper and he didn't touch the ball. So goal.I say it's a goal.
The last attacker is in an offside position, but I don't think he interfered with the play. The attacker didn't touch the ball and the keeper was beaten by the header at full stretch.
I guess you could argue that the presence of the offside attacker caused the keeper to jump more hesitantly to his left, and therefore he wasn't able to get to the ball in time, but I think that header was going in either way.
Say what you will about McDonald's, at least it's not communism!Agree with Canderson .. Offside. The player in the offside position is attempting to play the ball .. the second he does that he is offside.
But then, after seeing non calls like the Lovren/Kane one a couple of weeks ago who knows?
How can you possibly think he's not in an offside position?Looks like a goal to me. I think he's actually onside - his arms don't count - but even if you think he's offside, I don't think he interfered with the play. The ball is redirected before it crosses the line, but I'm 90% sure that's the goalie getting a fingertip to it.
Didn't realize the story quoted below was the same game.Offside. I find it hard to believe his presence did not effect the players around him. I'd be screaming mad if that counted. Did it count?
Of course I was, am, and (at heart) always will be a defender.
Do you read the english version of Kathimerini for work or for pleasure?Didn't realize the story quoted below was the same game.
It’s a bang bang play for sure. On a banger, one school of high level reffing is to make the expected call. This is not always the presumptive call. The presumptive call here is probably goal. But all things considered I think offside is the expected call.-The players position is offside, as a part (legs) of his body with which you can score are closer to the goal than 2nd defending player
-he is not considered "active", as he does not interfere with any player
--> the keeper is able to make his move
--> the defender is able to make his move
-nobody touches the ball and it goes into the net
-attacker gives an effort to not touch the ball, else it would be an active offside (maybe go uncalled, because it was close)
-in each of those replays, i don´t see a single hand/arm raise to show "REF! OFFSIDE! BLOW YOUR WHISTLE! HE WAS IN MY WAY!" So another point that nobody was disturbed by the attacker.
If your a defender, you make your move. You are in no way stopped by another player in such a scrum of 15 players because you think "Oh, he´s offside. I cannot go for the ball." and therefore slow your movement. You also don´t know who is standing next to the corner flag and might keep someone onside, so you have to keep up playing all-in.
OTOH, this is so close. I´m sure in 100 cases the same ref gives 45 goals, 45 offside and ten freekicks for whatever shirtpulling.
Don't know about if it's a goal or offside...but can folks drop the 's' from 'offsides' - I dunno if it's a hangover from US Pro Football or other sports but there's no need to add the 's'.
Note: the more seasoned posters in the forum know this. It's a little thing, but it does hurt the eyes to see the 's' in so many posts.
I have no idea if the 'goal' is offside or onside...to quote every pundit under the sun - 'I've seen em given.'
In cricket, the standard term for throwing the ball to try and get a batsman run out is "to shy at the stumps". So I assume it's the same root meaning?Wasn't it Shankly or Clough who said "if a player is not interfering with play, they should not be on the pitch?" Just thought of this, did you guys in the cities call a throwin a shy? I never got that....I remember playing with some kids on Lewis who had moved to the Hebrides and they would call them shys. I was like "wot-the-fuck-is-a-shy?".
“Shy” meaning “to throw” is attested from the 18th century, but the origin is unknown.In cricket, the standard term for throwing the ball to try and get a batsman run out is "to shy at the stumps". So I assume it's the same root meaning?
shy
intransitive verb: to make a sudden throw
transitive verb: to throw (an object) with a jerk
of obscure origin
First Known Use: 1787
I'm wondering is it a regional thing then. Maybe I'm making too much of a leap, coconut shy- the game where you throw at coconuts. Sorry for the derail, it just always seemed to be the players from the central belt of Scotand that used shy for a throwin.“Shy” meaning “to throw” is attested from the 18th century, but the origin is unknown.
Even Webster's has it listed:
Aye, we called it a shy.Wasn't it Shankly or Clough who said "if a player is not interfering with play, they should not be on the pitch?" Just thought of this, did you guys in the cities call a throwin a shy? I never got that....I remember playing with some kids on Lewis who had moved to the Hebrides and they would call them shys. I was like "wot-the-fuck-is-a-shy?".