Spain (a) in October

[Distant Doonhamer]

Just now, printer said:

To me being offside just means you are in an offside position. It doesn't say whether or not you are committing an offence (ie are also interfering with play, an opponent).

Again fair enough. 

[Otis Blue]

Just seen the highlights and don't think Hickey should be criticised for his slip leading to the 2nd goal. Any player can lose his footing, it's tough but sh*t happens. That aside the lad had a great game, a real star of the future. Top lad.

[HeartsOfficialMoaner]

7 minutes ago, printer said:

To me being offside just means you are in an offside position. It doesn't say whether or not you are committing an offence (ie are also interfering with play, an opponent).

I agree. It's a part of the game. In this case the defenders step out to catch the attackers offside. It's a skill in itself, the timing of it. 

[printer]

16 minutes ago, strichener said:

 

 

Your explanations are as inconsistent as a Dutchman in Seville.

There's no inconsistency. Whether a player is penalised for offside is a two part test; 1 - is the player in an offside position and 2 - is the player interfering with play/an opponent etc.

Part 1 is checked and decided by VAR, who inform the ref. The ref then decides if the player should be penalised for being in an offside position by deciding part 2 himself.

At least that's my understanding. I'm no expert on detailed VAR procedures and the detail of the offside law "may" have changed since I studied it in 1999 (although I don't think it has).

Edited October 13, 2023 by printer

[Barney Rubble]

4 hours ago, Donathan said:

See personally, I would say on first spells alone I’d put Walter Smith above McLeish, but McLeish’s second spell moves him up because of that nations league group win. Without that group win we never qualify for the euros and he deserves his share of the credit for it. He was rightly sacked after losing to Kazakhstan though. 

In fact, he was only sacked after a tepid 2-0 win v San Marino.

[The Algebraist]

They will be able to make themselves technically correct in one way or another, the problem is that the decision doesn't reflect the spirit football is played in. The fact everyone on the pitch thought the goal should have stood says it all.

As long as everyone can say fair enough at a decision they are usually ok with it. Completely fair simply isn't possible. No-one turns up to play, watch or referee a game wanting it to be decided by a set of baw-hair thin lines on a screen.

A more transparent rugby style system would be far better in my view, even if not perfect. Just the ability to hear the reason is a huge help. Most of the time you end up going "fair enough" and then can move on. I think it's all done on eye as well, I have never seen them draw lines for a forward pass.

Edited October 13, 2023 by The Algebraist

[Rugster]

23 hours ago, Frank Quitely said:

What do we reckon would have been the outcome if that 'goal' had been scored at the other end ?

Penalty to Rangers. 

[Sergeant Wilson]

1 hour ago, printer said:

To me being offside just means you are in an offside position. It doesn't say whether or not you are committing an offence (ie are also interfering with play, an opponent).

Would you get booked for persistent offside?

[No_Problemo]

The Christie comments on top of the other things make it pretty blatant that something dodgy/incompetent has went on.

What a fucking woeful football stadium that place was too, utter shithole. 

Edited October 13, 2023 by No_Problemo

[O'Kelly Isley III]

2 hours ago, Distant Doonhamer said:

BBC saying this evening that SFA have written to UEFA to seek clarification around the disallowed goal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67103483

 

On 12/10/2023 at 21:29, O'Kelly Isley III said:

Surely the SFA has to grow a pair here ?

Delighted to see that, fair play to them.

[accies1874]

42 minutes ago, No_Problemo said:

The Christie comments on top of the other things make it pretty blatant that something dodgy/incompetent has went on.

What a fucking woeful football stadium that place was too, utter shithole. 

I thought it looked impressive from a distance but the stands were the kind of crappy temporary structures you tend to get in some of the worst Scottish stadiums. 

[H Wragg]

1 hour ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

 

Delighted to see that, fair play to them.

Eck and Co also on the case!

[Pie Of The Month]

20 minutes ago, accies1874 said:

I thought it looked impressive from a distance but the stands were the kind of crappy temporary structures you tend to get in some of the worst Scottish stadiums. 

It being in the arse end of nowhere and seemingly with 1 proper way out of the stadium footprint which was narrowed by fences down to the tunnel under the motorway didn't help either. I've seen Scotland in some shite holes and that was one of the worst.

[Jambomo]

8 hours ago, No_Problemo said:

The Christie comments on top of the other things make it pretty blatant that something dodgy/incompetent has went on.

What a fucking woeful football stadium that place was too, utter shithole. 

I haven’t seen that interview yet, what did he say?

[No_Problemo]

8 hours ago, accies1874 said:

I thought it looked impressive from a distance but the stands were the kind of crappy temporary structures you tend to get in some of the worst Scottish stadiums. 

 

8 hours ago, Pie Of The Month said:

It being in the arse end of nowhere and seemingly with 1 proper way out of the stadium footprint which was narrowed by fences down to the tunnel under the motorway didn't help either. I've seen Scotland in some shite holes and that was one of the worst.

It really was terrible - I didn’t even think it was a football stadium from the outside when we arrived. I thought it was a car park and we weren’t at the ground yet! From my seat you couldn't see the bottom part of the goal - so when Spain hit the post you had no idea what happened. The view in general was atrocious too. 

1 hour ago, Jambomo said:

I haven’t seen that interview yet, what did he say?

It was quoted further up, just about referee telling them it was a foul and then changed to offside after the game. Bobby Madden does have a story on his Instagram now showing the referee apparently signalling for offside though. 

[DA Baracus]

14 hours ago, Kevin Finnerty said:

And if we win this game we'll have a 33% winning away record against them but I don't think that stat is really going to tell you much about the relative quality of the two teams in the year 2023.

Agreed. Our last game against them was 8 years. The only player from our current squad who played in the game was Andy Robertson. In fact he was the only one of our current squad who was in that 2015 squad in general.

We're a totally different team and the previous two games away to Georgia are irrelevant. The mentality of the team today is such a big factor as it's changed so massively. This isn't a manager and team shitting themselves over playing away and rolling out the excuses way in advance (heat, travel, pitch, time difference etc) and being beat before the game begins.

[2426255]

17 hours ago, kingjoey said:

...or you could be wrong. Is that possible?

[Diamonds are Forever]

11 hours ago, The Algebraist said:

They will be able to make themselves technically correct in one way or another, the problem is that the decision doesn't reflect the spirit football is played in. The fact everyone on the pitch thought the goal should have stood says it all.

As long as everyone can say fair enough at a decision they are usually ok with it. Completely fair simply isn't possible. No-one turns up to play, watch or referee a game wanting it to be decided by a set of baw-hair thin lines on a screen.

A more transparent rugby style system would be far better in my view, even if not perfect. Just the ability to hear the reason is a huge help. Most of the time you end up going "fair enough" and then can move on. I think it's all done on eye as well, I have never seen them draw lines for a forward pass.

 

I get the sentiment and it's something a lot of people say, but in practical terms what does this actually mean?

If you are going to have the offside law then by definition there needs to be a defined boundary or margin which you judge it by. And no matter where you put that boundary or how big you make the margin attackers will always push themselves right to the limit of it. Say you said you're allowed a 1 metre leeway, strikers then just push themselves to the edge of that and then you're back to disallowing goals for being 1 centimetre over the 1 metre leeway, you are literally back to square one except even worse because it becomes impossible to measure the distance, at least currently you have defined body parts which can be used.

If people think having an ever changing, entirely subjective version of offside is going to somehow improve the game and not lead to horrendous inconsistenties and arguments  then I'm not sure what to say.

The debate should be around how we best measure offside, the reliability of the technology and how it is communicated. But constant moaning about toenails being offside is completely unhelpful.

[Monkey Tennis]

25 minutes ago, Diamonds are Forever said:

The debate should be around how we best measure offside, the reliability of the technology and how it is communicated. But constant moaning about toenails being offside is completely unhelpful.

The two are intrinsically related though.

Before we started using the technology in this way, toenails didn't matter.  Officials made calls based on their observations.  If TV pictures subsequently showed an error by the margin of a toenail, it did not animate us.  The spirit of the law had been observed and we moved on.  The fact is that even with extensive, conclusive TV pictures, there was no great sense of injustice unless the officials' errors were exposed as glaring.

VAR is not currently being employed intelligently.

 

[printer]

12 hours ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

Would you get booked for persistent offside?

Don't think so. Why?