weeyin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 I think he positioned there to destract the linesman so Rooney can run behind the defenders As Ya Bezzer points out, he's hardly inactive in that position. I only mentioned he was irrelevant because Rooney is definitely offside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 Personally I think Pawlett is active. But 99.9% of the times that you see a player in that type of position the ref rules inactive unless they touch or go for the ball or an opposition player moves for them. It is a silly rule like I said...far too open to interpretation for a split second decision. Still think he is just on when the actual ball is hit. If it was us I would be saying on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 With the angle that shot is inconclusive in respect of Rooney. Pawlett didn't make a play for the ball so by the letter of the law is inactive. Overall it is a tough call either way - if we had marked their best forward it wouldn't have been an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brazilian Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 extended highlights started on BBCAlba if anyone wants to see it or to record and analyse it even further Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 extended highlights started on BBCAlba if anyone wants to see it or to record and analyse it even further Right everyone. Reconvene here with supporting evidence at 11pm :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 I conclude my previous post as drivel aftwr watching it on sportscene. First one off, second one on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted October 25, 2015 Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 So is a player only deemed to be "inactive" in relation to the ball? What if his sole intention is to deliberately distract the goalkeeper or interfere with his sight of the ball? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 From google re law 11 offside, Being in an offside position is not an offence in itself; at the moment the ball touches or is played by the player's team, the player must also be "actively involved in the play" in the opinion of the referee, in order for an offence to occur.[ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Therein lies the problem - opinion of the referee. Life was simpler when it was the old rule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Yes, very much a grey area. I'd say though that if a player is in an offside position on the opposite side of the field to where play is taking place then he would clearly not be active. However if its within a few metres of the ball or where play is taking place or the goalkeeper, then he should be deemed to be active. On this occasion, as in many previous ones against us the Dons got the rub of the green. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goggles & Flippers Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 You mean like when Big Handsome fouled Langfield and Craig Reid tapped the ball in? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 There is not a chance in hell Pawett isn't "active". They did tinker the rule so that you don't have to touch the ball to be active but ref's need to have this clarified. Having a player metres from the ball is clearly causing a distraction there for interfering. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Was there not a manager who said he would be pissed off if any of his players weren't active if they are on the pitch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wellfan1984 Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Brian Clough. "If a player on the field isn't interfering with play they're not getting paid" Brian Clough or Bill Shankley " If a player isn't interfering with play they shouldn't be on the pitch" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderpig Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 You mean like when Big Handsome fouled Langfield and Craig Reid tapped the ball in?nothing like that, ball came back off Reynolds on the line before Reid tapped it in so perfectly legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 You mean like when Big Handsome fouled Langfield and Craig Reid tapped the ball in? Never a foul in my view. Clangers comes out, hesitates and stops and has to jump from a standing start. At that point big John Jumps for it and yes makes contact with Langfield's body. Clangers knows he's made a mess of it and falls to the deck holding his face, despite being hit on the shoulder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Also I never watched but I heard the BBC highlights weren't a true reflection comapred to the youtube highlights. Was this true? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joewarkfanclub Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Also I never watched but I heard the BBC highlights weren't a true reflection comapred to the youtube highlights. Was this true? BBC higlights made it look like Aberdeen had more of the game. I think they are limited to 5 mins a game whereas the youtube clip was 8mins. But definitely more Motherwell stuff got cut out of what I saw on youtube. Of course the club will edit things in our favour as well so maybe unfair to compare the two. Be interesting if someone at the game who has seen both can comment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_P Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 What BBC highlights? Sportscene or Alba? Watching it again on Alba again I did kind of feel they had managed to include every time Aberdeen ventured into our half. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 BBC higlights made it look like Aberdeen had more of the game. I think they are limited to 5 mins a game whereas the youtube clip was 8mins. But definitely more Motherwell stuff got cut out of what I saw on youtube. Of course the club will edit things in our favour as well so maybe unfair to compare the two. Be interesting if someone at the game who has seen both can comment. BBC sportscene included all the key moments and clear cut chances but cut out some of the half chances/nice build up play we had. I would say it was a fair enough reflection given their time constraints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fat_tony Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Never a foul in my view. Clangers comes out, hesitates and stops and has to jump from a standing start. At that point big John Jumps for it and yes makes contact with Langfield's body. Clangers knows he's made a mess of it and falls to the deck holding his face, despite being hit on the shoulder. Not to mention big Hutchy being horse-collared by Vernon (I think) as the corner was taken. There was an absolutely perfect shot of it on here after the game. I always throw that one up whenever Dons fans are (still) moaning about that to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 What BBC highlights? Sportscene or Alba? Watching it again on Alba again I did kind of feel they had managed to include every time Aberdeen ventured into our half. Aye sorry I was meaning the Sportscene show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superward Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Not to mention big Hutchy being horse-collared by Vernon (I think) as the corner was taken. There was an absolutely perfect shot of it on here after the game. I always throw that one up whenever Dons fans are (still) moaning about that to me. Foul or not it still sickened them. Yas. That's the main thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
that hat Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Felt like we were being shown the Aberdeen site's recording on Sportscene. Did not reflect the game I watched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tweed Posted October 26, 2015 Report Share Posted October 26, 2015 Yes and no. I would agree we had more of the game but I would be hard pushed to think of a chance we had that was better than any of the Aberdeen ones that were included. When you only have five minutes you are going to show the best opportunities rather than try and give the viewer a feel of which team had more of the game, territory, half chances and on that basis I think they got it about right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.