The "offside" for the Norwich goal


Surely the point is the linesman thought he was offside as he was about to flag, however he bottles it when the other player runs onto the ball
If he thought he was on he would have done that run with the flag down thing. Some blame on the lino, but also kick it into row z and see if the whistle gets blown.
 
Is it fair to say that the Norwich player influenced the passage of play by going towards the ball then stopping?

Surely it must be deemed as offside to any rational professional official?
Yeap... he made to go towards the ball and influence the game, so offside. Thems the rules.
 
Watched it back and Hume played him on.

Hopefully a lesson learned to the players to play to the whistle and Ekwah should absolutely have wiped him out and taken the yellow.
 
I thought he was clearly interfering when I was sat in the West Stand (other side of the ground). This was because he looked pretty much on top of the ball. When I saw the replay at half time I wasn't so sure: he made a clear run for the ball but stopped a good few yards before getting to it, so I'd have to read the laws again to come to a decision. He definitely went towards the ball and he definitely affected the movement of our closest player, but then he did stop and didn't get closer than a few yards to the ball.

It's all immaterial anyway as he was onside in the first place :lol:
Laws in this post


It proves nothing as you can't see the stripes on the pitch and the angle is deceptive. If you look at the video frame by frame Hume is behind the line on the pitch even a stride later - but impossible to tell if hes onside or not.
See link above as I explained about Hume's left foot position which nobody else has mentioned yet is blatantly obvious.

Well it's often said that explaining the offside rule to those that have never played or watched football is quite difficult.
Perhaps judging by this thread the current arcane offside laws are rather opaque also to those who are supposed to be knowledgeable of the game?
See link above as seems simple to understand to me. It's just people don't know the intricate bits of various laws so end up thinking it's wrong.

Yeah I'm not convinced he's actually offside at all. The player clearly thought he was, as did Ekwah and everyone else. If he was offside, he was absolutely definitely interfering.
He definitely wasn't interfering, it's just you don't know the full offside law

I'm astonished this is raging on, virtually every match you see a player racing forward chasing a ball, the keeper has to decide what to do (so clearly that player is interfering already), defenders give hot pursuit because he is there (again clearly interfering). But it's the bizarre offside rules, why is he not flagged offside? Why does the lino wait until he touches the ball? Because only then does he become 'active' in these daft rules. If he leaves it there is no offside. If another player somehow wins the foot race and the keeper had decided to stay then he would be onside and entitled to go for it.

Our scenario is a good bit less dramatic than that but basically the same, leaving just the issue of did he impede Ekwah? - that's a judgement that could go either way, he is in the way to me, but doesn't stop Ekwah doing anything he is trying to. It's shit, but technically, it's not offside. But if you reckon he impeded Ekwah physically then the flag should have gone up.
See the link below that I posted previously as there's a load of examples explained in more detail about what is classes as interfering which is clear that many fans don't know. I'm no ref but I can understand why they do this. It's up to the opposition players to play to the whistle and not switch off like they did as it wasn't just Ekwah who did, O'Nien did too and it was early in the game.


I agree. But every man and his dog were adamant he was 'miles off' and its blatant nonsense. Coming from me who's a massive critic of referees and officials.

Some will simply refuse to hold their hand up amd admit it could have been the right decision after spiting and frothing from the north stand.
It's obvious that some fans go with the flow of a decision depending on who it favours because if this was in the PL and it was Clarke on the wing and it was Ekwah who scored then we'd have many posts being the opposite viewpoint. It's been a long time since I took of my red n white specs as I spent many times getting frustrated at the match about decisions, only to see upon replay on TV at home it wasn't what I thought. Yet some on here use being at the match as some sort of evidence that something happened but in reality, while this may be the case for some incidents, the human eye can be tricked in moments like this as it simply can't see everything at once.

If you watch the video and how the Norwich player is running, then the fact the Norwich player's left foot is in the air means it will be an illusion that he looks further forward due to the camera viewing angle. Look at Ballard's left foot as it looks level to Ekwah's trailing left foot which is in the air as it's the same illusion which is explained in the next image with pretty colourful lines

Logon or register to see this image


If you can't understand the 'illusion' then think of the line that drops down in VAR as his foot is actually a few inches off the deck. Hoying a few lines on may make it simpler to understand as the green line is the shade of the grass line, the red line is the line that VAR would use and the green line is the 'illusion' line due to the height of the foot. So if anything, the Norwich player is further onside that he looks if you consider his foot isn't planted on the deck.

He's onside all day long but even if he wasn't then he still didn't interfere enough according to the laws of the game as mentioned earlier in this post.

Logon or register to see this image



I will post the link to the offside videos as many still won't allow the linesman to get it right or wrong within a margin of error. Just hoy these on a TV and write down your answers (also if close or obvious) and then see what the actual results are. I bet you will be surprised at some and maybe understand how it's not as easy as you may think to call offside in real-time.

 
Last edited:
Laws in this post



See link above as I explained about Hume's left foot position which nobody else has mentioned yet is blatantly obvious.


See link above as seems simple to understand to me. It's just people don't know the intricate bits of various laws so end up thinking it's wrong.


He definitely wasn't interfering, it's just you don't know the full offside law


See the link below that I posted previously as there's a load of examples explained in more detail about what is classes as interfering which is clear that many fans don't know. I'm no ref but I can understand why they do this. It's up to the opposition players to play to the whistle and not switch off like they did as it wasn't just Ekwah who did, O'Nien did too and it was early in the game.



It's obvious that some fans go with the flow of a decision depending on who it favours because if this was in the PL and it was Clarke on the wing and it was Ekwah who scored then we'd have many posts being the opposite viewpoint. It's been a long time since I took of my red n white specs as I spent many times getting frustrated at the match about decisions, only to see upon replay on TV at home it wasn't what I thought. Yet some on here use being at the match as some sort of evidence that something happened but in reality, while this may be the case for some incidents, the human eye can be tricked in moments like this as it simply can't see everything at once.

If you watch the video and how the Norwich player is running, then the fact the Norwich player's left foot is in the air means it will be an illusion that he looks further forward due to the camera viewing angle. Look at Ballard's left foot as it looks level to Ekwah's trailing left foot which is in the air as it's the same illusion which is explained in the next image with pretty colourful lines

Logon or register to see this image


If you can't understand the 'illusion' then think of the line that drops down in VAR as his foot is actually a few inches off the deck. Hoying a few lines on may make it simpler to understand as the green line is the shade of the grass line, the red line is the line that VAR would use and the green line is the 'illusion' line due to the height of the foot. So if anything, the Norwich player is further onside that he looks if you consider his foot isn't planted on the deck.

He's onside all day long but even if he wasn't then he still didn't interfere enough according to the laws of the game as mentioned earlier in this post.

Logon or register to see this image



I will post the link to the offside videos as many still won't allow the linesman to get it right or wrong within a margin of error. Just hoy these on a TV and write down your answers (also if close or obvious) and then see what the actual results are. I bet you will be surprised at some and maybe understand how it's not as easy as you may think to call offside in real-time.

I agree with this. I think hes onside and even on the match thread yesterday I said the goal should stand as he hasn't really interfered. I got dogs abuse :lol:
 

Back
Top