Sportscene

Helanders Beard said:
You should probably get your facts right before calling anyone embarrassing, Colak was offside ffs he was ahead of the ball when it was played, it doesn’t matter that it was backwards. It’s already been cleared up multiple times.
Click to expand...
Valley Bluenose said:
Post #26 has the current rules. Give it a read.
Click to expand...
Did the rule change?

He was def offside then.. Learn something new! :)
 
TN8 said:
The rule hasn't changed. You can't be offside if you're behind the ball. If you're ahead of the ball and in an offside position then you're offside even if it's played backwards.
Click to expand...
This should be a sticky. You are correct, it cannot be emphasised enough; you cannot be offside if you are behind the ball. The misunderstanding about backward passes has been around forever.
 
Mason Boyne running the line?
I didn't think the officials were too bad today and we got a bit of luck with the Colak goal.
Colak looks a Rangers striker to me, will score many goals for us.
 
Did Matondo tackle the player rather than pass it. It was more of a instinctive stretch than a pass and Colak definitely didn’t get an advantage by being in an offside position as he had to run away from goal to receive it.

Law 11 - Offside: ‘deliberate play’ guidelines clarified | IFAB

www.theifab.com www.theifab.com

  • The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
 
Sorry if already covered, but I noticed in their coverage that they showed Borna's free kick but not the foul that led to it. A cynic might say that it was because the player who tripped one of our players on the edge of the box was already on a yellow card.
 
What is this crap from Stewart now about bringing in youth .does he or did he mention this with Celtic ?.found the comment very srange
 
Puggy said:
Been impressed with that big boy up front at Livingston.

He will cause a lot of problems, Hopefully to the Shettleston harriers.
Click to expand...
Livi seem to have the knack of picking up big physical strikers that are a handful. Menga, Jet, now this lad. Long may it continue because he'll cause them plenty problems.
 
Goal at Livi was chopped off incorrectly, we are told these things even themselves out over the course of a season.
 
TerryMunro said:
Did Matondo tackle the player rather than pass it. It was more of a instinctive stretch than a pass and Colak definitely didn’t get an advantage by being in an offside position as he had to run away from goal to receive it.

Law 11 - Offside: ‘deliberate play’ guidelines clarified | IFAB

www.theifab.com www.theifab.com

  • The player had time to coordinate their body movement, i.e. it was not a case of instinctive stretching or jumping, or a movement that achieved limited contact/control
Click to expand...
Interesting take. Some posters were using this exact rule last week to state Morelos was offside for his goal despite their defender blocking the original pass which then deflected towards him instead of Arfield as it wasn't an intentional pass. As you say, in this situation Matondo tries to win the ball or at least block a clearance and gets his toe on it just before the defender, the fact it then unintentionally reaches Colak and he scores from it should see the aforementioned posters above agreeing with you wholeheartedly on this one. I've a feeling that won't be the case however, and they'll want their cake and eat it by viewing both as offside though, funny that.
 
For me, he’s clearly offside given the rule explanation.

The old adage that things even themselves out eventually is true in this instance as his goal at Livvy was clearly level and should have stood.

Luckily in both instances the result wasn’t affected by the wrong decisions.

Still think Morelos was onside last week as that ball wasn’t heading to him initially.
 
wee_bear said:
For me, he’s clearly offside given the rule explanation.

The old adage that things even themselves out eventually is true in this instance as his goal at Livvy was clearly level and should have stood.

Luckily in both instances the result wasn’t affected by the wrong decisions.

Still think Morelos was onside last week as that ball wasn’t heading to him initially.
Click to expand...
One hundred percent.
 
wee_bear said:
For me, he’s clearly offside given the rule explanation.

The old adage that things even themselves out eventually is true in this instance as his goal at Livvy was clearly level and should have stood.

Luckily in both instances the result wasn’t affected by the wrong decisions.

Still think Morelos was onside last week as that ball wasn’t heading to him initially.
Click to expand...

Of course he was onside. It was cut back to Arfield the diverted by a defender so a new phase of play
 
Shengus Malengus said:
So when did the forward/backwards pass rule change?

When I played the game you couldn't be offside from a ball played back to you.
Click to expand...
I finished playing in 2000 after 14+ years of mostly highland league games.

Even back then the rule was that it didn’t matter if the ball was passed back the way if you were ahead of the player passing it to you and none of the opposition defenders were between you and the keeper, you were offside.
 
turps100 said:
Agree 100%. Not offside, as it was not a forward pass. No surprise the Sportscene "experts" don't even know the rules.
Click to expand...
Its even more surprising that so many dedicated and loyal followers of football posting on here don't know the rules.:rolleyes: In this instance, just for once, Stewart was correct. It was offside - as per the rules I posted all the way back at post #26.

So things did 'even themselves out' - in this case in the space of just two weeks. Hopefully we continue to get our share of the 'breaks' from Referees. Better yet, let's hope they get every decision right in every game - especially those involving the Dhims (minimal chance, I know).
 
Valley Bluenose said:
As per post #26. It doesn’t matter if it goes backwards these days. Colak is in an offside position, as per the rules, when it’s played. Therefore as soon as he becomes involved in active play it’s an offence.
Click to expand...
Some people think this is a recent law change - it is not. I remember checking the offside law in the evening times wee red book in the early eighties to confirm that it was nothing to do with the direction of the ball.
 
Spart7 said:
Thanks for posting this, first I've seen it back. I actually think he's onside looking closely at that. Follow the cut of the grass and don't just look at how far in front of the others that angle makes him out to be, and you see the defender marking Matondo has his foot pulled right back in an attempt to clear the ball just as Matondo gets his foot on it. It's extremely close, but I genuinely think he's playing him on.
Click to expand...
What in the name of f*ck are you on about man?! :))
 
TN8 said:
What in the name of f*ck are you on about man?! :))
Click to expand...
B-) First glance I also thought offside, no question, then I looked closer at the point it's frozen in the clip and changed my mind. The grass lines, if you look at them, make it pretty obvious you aren't looking straight across a line with Colak standing a mile offside and isn't as clear cut as it first appears. The defender Matondo tackles at the far side of the box has his foot pulled back ready to clear the ball and his foot (visible in the picture underneath the elbow of the defender next to Colak when it freezes) and Colak's foot look equidistant in relation to the cut of the grass and distance between them. It's one for Gary Neville style black lines to see if he is 100% on or off, I'm just saying it's not as obvious an offside as that angle makes it out to be. Tbf I've changed my mind about 50 times on it since. :)

If you want a proper brain melt and assume we have VAR in place then if the goal is eventually classified as offside is the play then pulled back and a penalty awarded for the defenders follow through on Matondo after he won the ball as it would 100% have been deemed a foul outside the box? How about if Matondo is classed by VAR to have unintentionally played the ball after an attempt to block the clearance and under the one interpretation of the new rules another poster highlighted earlier in the thread Colak therefore isn't offside anyway? Bring back the original offside rules I say. The new ones are far too convoluted. :)
 
Arkansasgerstill said:
I am not sure anyone knows the offside rules anymore they have changed them so often, and made them so complicated and nuanced over the years.
Click to expand...
Off side and handball there is always a debate about the two issues,Best left to the Refs and the all knowing pundits.
 
Sad days when you can't even watch highlights of your own league and team because of the bias and agendas being pushed constantly from scum.
It's expected from the BBC but it still doesn't make it right. People pay their pishy license to have to put up with that pish.
Sky sports Scotland is the same , packed full of bheast scum from commentary to pundits. I've tried watching but within two minutes it's off before I put my foot through the TV.
Thankfully there's other ways of watching the games and highlights that doesn't involved having to listen to some screeching wee spud faced fcucker like Liam McLeod, or crocker and his little bheast sidekick walker, absolute vermin the lot of them.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a guy that condones violence, but I'd absolutely love to punch the fook right out of that Liam McLeod's coupon until there was absolutely nothing left but a pile of tattie mush. What an irritating horrible little beast loving bastard of a lady's front bottom that he is. Screeching like a wee lassie on that commentary continually fawning over those paedos regardless whether they are playing or not
 
Boab Doakes RFC said:
I'm not a guy that condones violence, but I'd absolutely love to punch the fook right out of that Liam McLeod's coupon until there was absolutely nothing left but a pile of tattie mush. What an irritating horrible little beast loving bastard of a lady's front bottom that he is. Screeching like a wee lassie on that commentary continually fawning over those paedos regardless whether they are playing or not
Click to expand...
Not a fan then?:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Latest posts

Back
Top