Keano kicking off about the FAI

Breath of fresh air, honest as you are going to get.

Love Keano me.

Originally Posted by koppas

I met Keano when I was 12 and wasn't intimidated at all.

Top red me. Hard @#%&! enall.

He probably fell for the wide eyed "come and get me" look.

Originally Posted by elhombre

£#%&! me, read that again and tell me you don't sound like a soft @#%&!.

he's a £#%&!ing weirdo and a complete @#%&!, a decent player, mind.

That elhombre is a £#%&!ing weirdo and a complete @#%&!, a decent poster, mind

Originally Posted by wee man

not under the current rules it wasn't

Can you explain that? Because the offside player there is Scillaci, and the ball went directly to him - he even jumped for it.

I must have missed the new rules but I honestly can't understand how it isn't offside.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Can you explain that? Because the offside player there is Scillaci, and the ball went directly to him - he even jumped for it.

I must have missed the new rules but I honestly can't understand how it isn't offside.

Don't shoot the messenger - he has to be active - which apparently means he has to touch the ball.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Can you explain that? Because the offside player there is Scillaci, and the ball went directly to him - he even jumped for it.

I must have missed the new rules but I honestly can't understand how it isn't offside.

He wasn't a catholic therefore was onside.

Originally Posted by wee man

Don't shoot the messenger - he has to be active - which apparently means he has to touch the ball.

I'm not, just genuinely puzzled. As it stands then, that means at every free-kick any number of players can stand in an offside position?

Originally Posted by armchair

He wasn't a catholic therefore was onside.

I prefer this explanation.

Originally Posted by Zorg

I'm not, just genuinely puzzled. As it stands then, that means at every free-kick any number of players can stand in an offside position?



I prefer this explanation.

Look at the chelsea goal the other week. Apart from the fact Drogba was actually onside as Wes was on the ground beside him - most pundits were arguing that although he was in an offside position and swung his leg at the ball right in front of Van Der Sar - he wasn't flagged for offside because he didn't touch the ball.

Originally Posted by wee man

Look at the chelsea goal the other week. Apart from the fact Drogba was actually onside as Wes was on the ground beside him - most pundits were arguing that although he was in an offside position and swung his leg at the ball right in front of Van Der Sar - he wasn't flagged for offside because he didn't touch the ball.

Imagining Drogba was offside for a minute, he swung his foot right in front of VdS. I fail to see how that isn't interfering - it's absolutely crazy. Ditto Scillaci, he stretched to try and head the ball. It's the very definition of offside to me - a ball is played in to a player standing in an offside position. 'Not interfering' in my eyes is a player on the other side of the box, not one straining to reach the ball and missing it by inches.

What is there to stop a player simply standing in front of a keeper, in an offside position? As long as he doesn't touch the ball then that must be ok?

Originally Posted by wee man

Look at the chelsea goal the other week. Apart from the fact Drogba was actually onside as Wes was on the ground beside him - most pundits were arguing that although he was in an offside position and swung his leg at the ball right in front of Van Der Sar - he wasn't flagged for offside because he didn't touch the ball.

And we all agreed that was a stupid explanation and they don't know the rule of 'interfering with play'. The fact he did swing a leg, meant VDS couldn't start his dive until later because it could have been steered into the other corner.

Tbh, I thought he wasn't offside but only because I didn't think the ball went to him. If he went up for a header, and tried to attack the ball - even if he missed - he is offside.
As soon as a striker decides to close down the ball when coming back from an offside position he is flagged, even if he gets nowhere near the ball. Same applies here...but obviously was missed in both cases. Still the law.

The best bit is when that blokes phone goes off

You certainly don't have to touch the ball.

Interfering with play/seeking to gain an advantage.

Originally Posted by Zorg

Imagining Drogba was offside for a minute, he swung his foot right in front of VdS. I fail to see how that isn't interfering - it's absolutely crazy. Ditto Scillaci, he stretched to try and head the ball. It's the very definition of offside to me - a ball is played in to a player standing in an offside position. 'Not interfering' in my eyes is a player on the other side of the box, not one straining to reach the ball and missing it by inches.

What is there to stop a player simply standing in front of a keeper, in an offside position? As long as he doesn't touch the ball then that must be ok?

You see it happen regularly where an attacker is in front of a a goalkeeper in an offside position and not flagged. Keeper parries the ball or it comes off the post forward sticks it in the onion bag - forward is flagged (at that stage) and goal disallowed. Original shot goes in - goal given.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

You certainly don't have to touch the ball.

Interfering with play/seeking to gain an advantage.

tbf to wee man, the refs do seem to have interpreted it's only once you touch it though.

It's partly why I'm reticent about video decisions/appeals, it'll be @#%&!s like jeff winter and other ex-refs making the decisions.

Originally Posted by wee man

You see it happen regularly where an attacker is in front of a a goalkeeper in an offside position and not flagged. Keeper parries the ball or it comes off the post forward sticks it in the onion bag - forward is flagged (at that stage) and goal disallowed. Original shot goes in - goal given.

Give us an example.
And, if the goalkeeper's view is not impaired, he isn't interfering with that passage of play. He only begins to interfere when the ball bounces back to him and he collects the ball.

I'm beginning to thinks Armchair was right...

Originally Posted by armchair

tbf to wee man, the refs do seem to have interpreted it's only once you touch it though.

It's partly why I'm reticent about video decisions/appeals, it'll be @#%&!s like jeff winter and other ex-refs making the decisions.

Don't get this bit.

Originally Posted by wee man

You see it happen regularly where an attacker is in front of a a goalkeeper in an offside position and not flagged. Keeper parries the ball or it comes off the post forward sticks it in the onion bag - forward is flagged (at that stage) and goal disallowed. Original shot goes in - goal given.

Yes you do, I see what you mean. I still disagree with it though, because simply being in the area - and especially jumping for the ball - is interfering in play.

Originally Posted by wee man

You see it happen regularly where an attacker is in front of a a goalkeeper in an offside position and not flagged. Keeper parries the ball or it comes off the post forward sticks it in the onion bag - forward is flagged (at that stage) and goal disallowed. Original shot goes in - goal given.

I know Anderson does it, but I don't know whether he's always offside, and the ball never ever bounces out to him. Sure he did it for Hargo's freekick against Arsenal in April 08

Originally Posted by armchair

tbf to wee man, the refs do seem to have interpreted it's only once you touch it though.

It's partly why I'm reticent about video decisions/appeals, it'll be @#%&!s like jeff winter and other ex-refs making the decisions.

the problem is - some refs do and some refs don't (song there somewhere). The bottom line should be - did the player effect the goal/goalkeeper. Depends on each individual goal.

Originally Posted by Argentina

That elhombre is a £#%&!ing weirdo and a complete @#%&!, a decent poster, mind