Sportscene

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

5 hours ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

It's a difficult one, Colak came back from an offside position when the ball was played, which usually means offside.

Maybe there is a rule change I'm missing, but like I said before, I think Colak had a perfectly "online" header disallowed in a previous game, so it evens itself out. 

Edit: when Matondo slid in the ball went straight across or "slightly" back so that could maybe be a factor why he wasn't off, as it wasn't a forward pass. 

Law 11 - Offside: ‘deliberate play’ guidelines clarified | IFAB (theifab.com)

There's a rule change that stipulates deliberate play could be relevant regarding Matondo's tackle/pass. Was Matondo in full control of the ball, did he intend to pass the ball or was it more of  instinctive stretching with limited control. 

 

[The Dude 20,026]

9 hours ago, MVRanger said:

Colak was definitely offside -  it's the position of the player regardless  of the direction of the ball. These ones are very rarely picked up but will become more prevalent when VAR comes in.

No he wasn’t. Has to be a deliberate pass. He intercepted the ball after it was won n a challenge

[Swagger 7,889]

On 02/08/2022 at 10:42, Swagger said:

That’s it exactly. Aside from the fact they hate our club the coverage and pundits are shite. 
There are a million ways to view our games or goals - sportscene shouldn’t be one of them. 
 

 

I must admit I stuck it on when I saw Dundee Utd were getting pumped. The three ‘pundits’ in the studio were absolute clowns and that commentator is just about the worst around - throw in that prick Stewart and you’ve probably got the worst football coverage on the planet 

[Roy Hobbs 2,159]

48 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

Law 11 - Offside: ‘deliberate play’ guidelines clarified | IFAB (theifab.com)

There's a rule change that stipulates deliberate play could be relevant regarding Matondo's tackle/pass. Was Matondo in full control of the ball, did he intend to pass the ball or was it more of  instinctive stretching with limited control. 

 

I think that only applies to the opposition deliberately playing the ball.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 minute ago, Roy Hobbs said:

I think that only applies to the opposition deliberately playing the ball.

"2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
(...)

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: 

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

(...)

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."

 

I'm not sure, he definitely wasn't gaining any advantages by being offside and you can argue that Matondo didn't deliberately play the ball, it was more of a block.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,615]

29 minutes ago, The Dude said:

No he wasn’t. Has to be a deliberate pass. He intercepted the ball after it was won n a challenge

Thought the "deliberate" aspect related to the touch by the opponent, not teammate tbh.

 

[Roy Hobbs 2,159]

6 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

"2. Offside offence
A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:
(...)

gaining an advantage by playing the ball or interfering with an opponent when it has: 

rebounded or been deflected off the goalpost, crossbar, match official or an opponent

(...)

A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent."

 

I'm not sure, he definitely wasn't gaining any advantages by being offside and you can argue that Matondo didn't deliberately play the ball, it was more of a block.

Gaining advantage by playing the ball. Colak obviously did.

The deliberately playing the ball only applies to the opponent.

[Roy Hobbs 2,159]

Plus I'd argue Matondo deliberately played the ball. Same as the Spain defender when Mbappe scored.

 

[DMax399 3,685]

10 hours ago, J-Maestro said:

Wasn't a backwards pass though?

Don’t know mate, I didn’t see the TV highlights.  I’m at the wrong end of the ground as well to see if it was backwards or not.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

14 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

Gaining advantage by playing the ball. Colak obviously did.

The deliberately playing the ball only applies to the opponent.

its definitely open for interpretation. Colak being in an offside position the moment Matondo touched the ball was anything but advantageous as he had to run away from goal to receive the ball and neither of the rules stipulated penalises Colak getting involved in active play.

[DMax399 3,685]

7 hours ago, Leftpegcoopz11 said:

It's a difficult one, Colak came back from an offside position when the ball was played, which usually means offside.

Maybe there is a rule change I'm missing, but like I said before, I think Colak had a perfectly "online" header disallowed in a previous game, so it evens itself out. 

Edit: when Matondo slid in the ball went straight across or "slightly" back so that could maybe be a factor why he wasn't off, as it wasn't a forward pass. 

I’m not sure mate, as I didn’t see the footage.  But possibly it could be the fact that he came back from an offside position itself.  Who knows nowadays.  Happy that it stood on this occasion though.

[Roy Hobbs 2,159]

14 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

its definitely open for interpretation. Colak being in an offside position the moment Matondo touched the ball was anything but advantageous as he had to run away from goal to receive the ball and neither of the rules stipulated penalises Colak getting involved in active play.

It's not. He's active the minute he touches the ball. It doesn't matter if he runs away from goal.

VAR would chop that goal off.

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

28 minutes ago, Roy Hobbs said:

It's not. He's active the minute he touches the ball. It doesn't matter if he runs away from goal.

VAR would chop that goal off.

When he touches the ball he is onside. Due to it not being a deliberate pass or him being in an advantageous position when the tackle by Matondo happened and wasn't interfering with play the goal rightfully stood. VAR should agree with the refs on field decision.  

[shotstopper 765]

I always imagine if that was against us, was it offside?  I would have to say yes. At least this time it went for us.

I'll take it because usually it goes against us knowing this shower of incompetent officials.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,615]

18 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

When he touches the ball he is onside. Due to it not being a deliberate pass or him being in an advantageous position when the tackle by Matondo happened and wasn't interfering with play the goal rightfully stood. VAR should agree with the refs on field decision.  

Offside rule is about where the player is when the touch /pass was made to them if they then become involved in play.

There's been plenty meddling with the rules but nothing I'm aware of that a player can be offside when his player touches it to him he can then be onside when he touches it.

Thats without even considering that he was in an offside position between the sticks, that's quite advantageous given he swivels and scores from it.

[Roy Hobbs 2,159]

30 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

When he touches the ball he is onside. Due to it not being a deliberate pass or him being in an advantageous position when the tackle by Matondo happened and wasn't interfering with play the goal rightfully stood. VAR should agree with the refs on field decision.  

It doesn't matter when he touches the ball. The goal didn't rightfully stand. If that was celtic against us, everybody on here would be furious at the decision 

If VAR only agrees with the on field decision, then it's pointless. Offside goals are one of the few elements of it, that are completely decided by VAR.

[Kaydubya11 580]

3 hours ago, Swagger said:

I must admit I stuck it on when I saw Dundee Utd were getting pumped. The three ‘pundits’ in the studio were absolute clowns and that commentator is just about the worst around - throw in that prick Stewart and you’ve probably got the worst football coverage on the planet 

Oh definitely. One of them was harping on about Bertie Vogts Scotland team getting thrashed twenty years ago whilst Stewart just rambles complete nonsense. Definitely the worst on the planet

[Howsitgoing 4,281]

1 hour ago, SeparateEntityMyArse said:

Offside rule is about where the player is when the touch /pass was made to them if they then become involved in play.

There's been plenty meddling with the rules but nothing I'm aware of that a player can be offside when his player touches it to him he can then be onside when he touches it.

Thats without even considering that he was in an offside position between the sticks, that's quite advantageous given he swivels and scores from it.

That's maybe what I'm trying to get to. If Matondo did make an intended pass to Colak he is offside. I see it more as a tackle and as such Colak only came into play when he actually touched the ball. It could be argued that the touch by Matondo falls into the non deliberate category as it comes off the opponent and onto him where he didn't have full control of the ball.

[LegendofCoop 17,252]

VAR will be used to question EVERY goal we score. 

We had better get used to that.

Fact  

[JackAlex93 11,218]

Why do Rangers fans even watch this absolute shite?

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

3 hours ago, The Dude said:

No he wasn’t. Has to be a deliberate pass. He intercepted the ball after it was won n a challenge

It doesn't have to be a deliberate pass.

Players can be offside from rebounded shots for instance.

[Rangers_no1 32,381]

Can't believe half the stuff I've read on here claiming its not offside.

Backwards pass

Not a deliberate pass.

[The Beast 9,187]

8 minutes ago, JackAlex93 said:

Why do Rangers fans even watch this absolute shite?

This. After the game you usually can get the goals or whole game via the internet with minimum searching. Why watch these cunts at all unless you're sitting there waiting to be offended. Cut off their oxygen via viewing figures.

[JackAlex93 11,218]

2 minutes ago, The Beast said:

This. After the game you usually can get the goals or whole game via the internet with minimum searching. Why watch these cunts at all unless you're sitting there waiting to be offended. Cut off their oxygen via viewing figures.

Exactly. I'd much rather watch highlights on YouTube/twitter and then hear match reaction from players and staff directly from Rangers. Couldn't give 2 fucks what Michael Stewart has to say about us.

[Roy Hobbs 2,159]

52 minutes ago, Howsitgoing said:

That's maybe what I'm trying to get to. If Matondo did make an intended pass to Colak he is offside. I see it more as a tackle and as such Colak only came into play when he actually touched the ball. It could be argued that the touch by Matondo falls into the non deliberate category as it comes off the opponent and onto him where he didn't have full control of the ball.

The deliberately touching the ball only applies to opposition players. Matondo only has to touch the ball for Colak to be offside. He's offside and the goal should have been chopped off.