Today's offside goal

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

I've watched the footage a few times, poured over the freeze frames and read the laws of the game analysis on here and I've come to the following conclusion. F*ck 'em! We deserve a bit of luck and it is delicious to taste the tears of the Jambo fans and the arseholes in the media.

[Cumbria_blue 51]

31 minutes ago, Inigo said:

No, there's pedantry and there's reading the rules correctly. Pedantry . He can't disallow the goal for him going off and coming on again. That's not pedantry, it's fundamental to whether the goal was correctly allowed or not. 

Semantics have nothing to do with it. The Hearts boy that put the ball in the net didn't leave the pitch for any other reason than momentum, after which he came straight back on. There was no intentional tactical effort to gain an advantage by going off the pitch. Ergo there was no reason to disallow the goal.

I don't doubt you've read the rules, but the referee has applied them differently to you in this case, and all I'm saying is I can see why he did. I just felt you were looking in to it all a bit further than the situation really called for. There is an argument to be made that in going off the pitch and coming back on, he's gained an unfair advantage accidentally through losing his marker in doing so. I think there were reasonable grounds to disallow the goal. There were reasonable grounds to allow it as you've highlighted, but in this case I guess we're lucky it went our way. The Dodoo offside goal was another one that depending on your interpretation of the offside rule and interfering with play, could easily have gone our way on a different day. 

[kanjo 26,343]

Seems they are in a bit of denial.  Because the rules have been explained to them, it is now an argument of "Cowie's momentum taking him out of play" completely ignoring the fact that he did....  in fact have a player offside anyway.

Cowie was offside and it's as simple as that.  I don't question the Hertz fans though... they seem confused given the whole

"Sevco have had these decisions given to them for decades"

Their pain gives me so much joy.  Long may it continue.

[Inigo 32,579]

15 minutes ago, Cumbria_blue said:

I don't doubt you've read the rules, but the referee has applied them differently to you in this case, and all I'm saying is I can see why he did. I just felt you were looking in to it all a bit further than the situation really called for. There is an argument to be made that in going off the pitch and coming back on, he's gained an unfair advantage accidentally through losing his marker in doing so. I think there were reasonable grounds to disallow the goal. There were reasonable grounds to allow it as you've highlighted, but in this case I guess we're lucky it went our way. The Dodoo offside goal was another one that depending on your interpretation of the offside rule and interfering with play, could easily have gone our way on a different day. 

We don't know that for sure though, mate. For all we know he's looked at the Hearts boy and thought he was offside in the straightforward, normal sense. In fact, if I was a betting man, that's what I'd bet on. It has to be a case of the boy seeking to gain a tactical advantage, i.e. intentional. The Hearts boy clearly didn't make any intentional effort to seek a tactical advantage by going off the pitch. His momentum took him off and he came immediately back on at the same spot. He didn't attempt to lose his marker or anything else. 

But anyway, whatever. Doesn't really matter. We're clearly not going to agree. Just makes it funnier to me that he got it wrong. Poor wee Jambos will be spitting their cornflakes all over their laptop screens.

 

[KingKirk 25,746]

BBC sportsound are really having a go about this decision... Feel the hurt

 

here's a idea get more tv cameras in the grounds so they can show along the line. Otherwise shut the fuck up

[KingKirk 25,746]

anyone listening to bbc sportsound utter utter disgrace

[there'sonlyoneamoruso 1,724]

1 minute ago, KingKirk said:

anyone listening to bbc sportsound utter utter disgrace

Not listening, but I can imagine the rhetoric. Is Rob McLean on? He seems particularly gutted about this decision.

[Rangersfansmediawatch 1,055]

Strange there wasn't all this drama when the unwashed scored their first goal against Hearts at Tynecastle.

Usual Monday following a Rangers win.

[dummiesoot 16,039]

I just watched the goal again, the hearts boy clearly bides his time to come back on the pitch, basically losing his marker, gaining his unfair advantage.

 bbc Scotland don't know the rules so are bleating about it.

[jim beam 2,188]

1 hour ago, Rangersfansmediawatch said:

Afraid i'm having to hold my hand up here and sit on the naughty step for doing that.. Sorry Hearts fans

Absolutely tremendous that they took the bait and then the actual linesman chops off a goal for them.    

Mate you got about 90% of the wallopers lol.

[The Dude 20,026]

Cowie being off the pitch is irrelevant. He's offside when the ball is played 

[dummiesoot 16,039]

12 minutes ago, The Dude said:

Cowie being off the pitch is irrelevant. He's offside when the ball is played 

I am not talking about Cowie, Muirhead is off the pitch on the farming, waits a second before stepping back on the pitch gaining the advantage, he did not try to step back on the pitch right away. 

Go and watch Jules video, clear as day, he gains an advantage.

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

I'm sure Warburton and the analysts at Ibrox will be poring over the footage of the incident as we do have to learn from these sorts of things.    Perhaps their focus should be more on the build up to the cross into the box which took a fantastic save from Wes before the ball was played back in for the offside incident.   Seems to me that we have now had two games in a row where the opposition has been able to create enough space and time out wide to thump in dangerous crosses.   My reading of it is we have given far too much time and space to the opposition and nowhere near quick enough in moving to try to stop the cross in the first place.   On both occasions there did not seem to me to be good enough cover for wide positions.   

The offside incident itself is clearly causing a lot of discussion.   But the more telling points for Warburton and the players to consider are what could / should have been done to prevent quality crosses coming in in the first case.   

 

[magic8ball 27,901]

On 11 December 2016 at 3:56 PM, EastEnclosureBear said:

He does appear to be he was onside, which makes it funnier.

As Paterson miskicks it Wallace plays Muirhead on, but Wallace moves out quick so by the time the linesman looked across, Muirheads off. 

 

Is the guy on the right not offside ,even if off the park I'm sure he's deemed to be on the bye line ,no matter how far across 

[magic8ball 27,901]

3 hours ago, KingKirk said:

anyone listening to bbc sportsound utter utter disgrace

Listened to a bit on the way home,it was the agenda of the show 

I bet they didn't have a similar show when the sheep scored from a free kick that wasn't a free kick 

once again an agenda to make it look like we get favours 

[ARockit 118]

At any time in a football match if your momentum takes you into an offside position and you gain an advantage,  you are offside! Momentum, accident, intentional, it doesn't matter. If you gain an advantage it's offside. 

[magic8ball 27,901]

3 minutes ago, ARockit said:

At any time in a football match if your momentum takes you into an offside position and you gain an advantage,  you are offside! Momentum, accident, intentional, it doesn't matter. If you gain an advantage it's offside. 

Aye but but but it's pure no fair an that 

[kanjo 26,343]

Hertz fans being Hertz fans... they are now using the Romanov line of being cheated.

Those apples are getting more and more bitter

[eejay the dj 31,964]

On ‎10‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 9:15 PM, kanjo said:

It has to be up there with one of the best 'what goes around comes around' moments in recent times.  I could not stop laughing watching them still celebrating when we all knew it was disallowed. 

the fact that it was a good 20/30 seconds after the ball hit the net ,made it all the funnier .

Can never remember a goal being chopped off and we have already went in bedlam mode .

Truly was beautiful . Maybe that is why they were silent for the rest of the match .

Still can't believe they wouldn't look at us for around 10minutes

It was hilarious .

The sheepshaggers don't even watch the game . We went from one extreme to another in a week .

The scum bag sheep fuckers who haven't beaten us for 25 years at Ibrox ,watching us every second and noooo the football ,to the jambos wouldn't dare look at us to a man .

Think it's maybe a bit premature  to say ,normal service has resumed .

But it felt damn good beating these two fucking toe rag bastard clubs

[eejay the dj 31,964]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

Cowie being off the pitch is irrelevant. He's offside when the ball is played 

Certainly looks like it from this still . Best I've seen Dude

[Rangersfansmediawatch 1,055]

Just to make their day even worse.  Sorry Newco Hearts yer club died

Brace yourself's

  

[kanjo 26,343]

6 minutes ago, Rangersfansmediawatch said:

Just to make their day even worse.  Sorry Newco Hearts yer club died

Brace yourself's

  

Bidco it is then... hahaha

[ForeverAndEver 71,856]

Defending for it was pish.

[giffnockger 4,840]

12 hours ago, ForeverAndEver said:

Defending for it was pish.

This was my exact thought aswell mate, shambles at the back post

[roboscot 1,176]

3 out of 3 @ asktheref.com say the correct decision was made. 

http://www.asktheref.com/myAnswer/Question/31105/Scott

QUESTION NUMBER: 31105

Law 11 - Offside 12/12/2016

RE: SPFL Professional

SCOTT OF GLASGOW , UK ASKS...

In the recent Rangers v Hearts match at Ibrox on 10 Dec, was the decision to disallow a goal for Hearts consistent with Law 11? The Hearts player had stepped off of the pitch and then returned to the field of play without permission before turning the ball into the net.

https://youtu.be/JkxAkBPF0U0 The move starts at 40 seconds. 

ANSWER PROVIDED BY REFEREE RICHARD DAWSON 

Hi Scott, 
in my opinion the LOTG regarding offside were applied as the AR saw fit!! 
Players are not held to the punishment of exiting or returning to the FOP UNLESS it is deliberate action. This appeared to be more due to momentum and I believe there is NO issue with his return, that though is my opinion only! The issue, by my opinion only, HIS location at the moment of the last touch of the ball by the team mate who passes him the ball. He looked slightly closer to the goal line than the 2nd last opponent at the moment the ball was last touched by his team mate plain and simple.

If that is what the AR saw, then the offside call is valid. The attackers' brief exit merely put him on the goal line as it were, where momentarily, he WAS off the FOP . His return put him where he was on the field of play.

If you think he was placed on the goal line BECAUSE he left the FOP and thus was declared offside due to that fact he will REMAIN as on the goal line. IF, in the mind of the AR it was a deliberate movement, the AR would also be correct to declare him offside.  

We do not dispute judgement calls or seek to undermine official decisions. However, my opinion, here at asktheref.com we try to stick to factual LOTG analysis rather than seek to know the mindset of officials. They, like us, know the LOTG and base all their decisions on such. What they see from a certain angle. in real time we rarely try to armchair differently. We seek to provide the explanation of the LOTG, perhaps an explanation of how a decision might be reached not cast judgement.  
Cheers & Merry Christmas 
 

Read other questions answered by Referee Richard Dawson

View Referee Richard Dawson profile

ANSWER PROVIDED BY REFEREE PETER GROVE 

Hi Scott, 
I would say the decision was consistent with Law 11. 

Also, I wouldn't actually characterise this player's actions as leaving and/or entering the field without the referee's permission (both of which are cautionable infringements). The Laws tell us that:

''A player who crosses a boundary line as part of a playing movement, does not commit an infringement.''

For me, the fact that the player left and re-entered the field is not really the main issue here, it's simply whether he was in an offside position at the time the ball was played to him by a team mate. Whether you judge it based on his actual position at that point in time or use the interpretation that would put him on the end line for the purposes of offside due to having left the field, it appears from the video that he was offside in either case. So in my opinion the correct decision was made by the officials. 

Read other questions answered by Referee Peter Grove

View Referee Peter Grove profile

ANSWER PROVIDED BY REFEREE JOE MCHUGH 

Hi Scott
The AR gets one go at this in real time and the question he has to consider was whether the scorer was in an offside position at the moment of the cross. It certainly looks like a real possibility and the AR is well placed to see the situation unfold. 
The scorer had been slightly off the field of play which as part of play is not an issue. However I suspect it attracts the attention of the AR who sees the player coming back from that offside position and then left with the decision of positioning AT THE MOMENT of the cross.