Jump to content

Andy_P

Season 2020’21: Game 4 Hibernian (away)

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Alpha1886 said:

Offside offence

A player in an offside position at the moment the ball is played or touched* by a team-mate is only penalised on becoming involved in active play by:

  • interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
  • interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

Seedorf was doing none of the above. He was in an  offside position but that is NOT an offence. If the defender had miskicked on half-way line and Seedorf was behind him then play would have continued. So between them ref and linesman got it wrong. Par for the course for Scottish refereeing. Would have heard more about it if it had been one of the ugly sisters.

spot on Alpha 8, and you are so right about the uglies , we would be hearing about it all this week on the radio.

Cant understand other posters on here that are so quick to agree with terrible decision.

Look at the keeper after ball in the net , he hangs his head, if he thought he had been impeded then he would have been complainining to the ref.

The linesman thought Seedorf had touched it and all this nonsense about line of vision is cover up for them getting it wrong.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seedorf was clearly offside.

When he jumped and flicked his leg in the air he was either trying to deflect the ball or get out of the way of the shot.

If he was trying to deflect the ball then he falls foul of:

  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent

If he was trying to get out of the way of the shot he falls foul of:

  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

And look at where he's standing in relation to the keeper just before the ball is deflected. Looks like he's obstructing vision to me.

Screen-Shot-2020-08-16-at-9-02-21-PM.png

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rregarding the line of vision , you can clearly see the keepers face in the screenshot and he dived to his right, the deflection took it away from the keeper by his own defender so the goal should have stood.

Seedorf is jumping out of the way of the ball

They got it wrong.

 

 

Edited by Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, weeyin said:

 

And look at where he's standing in relation to the keeper just before the ball is deflected. Looks like he's obstructing vision to me.

Screen-Shot-2020-08-16-at-9-02-21-PM.png

 

 

What's that got to do with the decision.  It is where he was when White touches the ball...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, steelboy said:

 When White touches the ball he is offside and moving towards and across the keeper. 

We all have our opinions but the ref didnt give it.

Cracking volley tho as Andy Walker said.

Edited by Jack

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, steelboy said:

 When White touches the ball he is offside and moving towards and across the keeper. 

Yet the keeper didn't think there was a problem with the goal.  In fact no Hibernian player did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jack said:

Anyone who thinks it shouldnt have stood needs to know the laws of the game

 

Ok then enlighten us then why you think an attacking player standing half a yard offside right in front of the keeper who makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball when it comes in, should not be flagged offside.

Which rules are we not interpreting correctly?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Ok then enlighten us then why you think an attacking player standing half a yard offside right in front of the keeper who makes a deliberate attempt to play the ball when it comes in, should not be flagged offside.

Which rules are we not interpreting correctly?

He didn't make an attempt at the ball.  When the opposition players, remember players stick their hand up for everything nowadays had no qualms with the goal you know something is amiss if it isn't given.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ref and linesman got it absolutely correct. When the ball is played Seedorf is in an offside position. He then moves into the keepers eyeline and becomes active and therefore offside. He also tries to flick at the ball to deflect it. If he had stood still where he was there would have been no problem and the goal would have stood. But he didnt.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually think it was correct to disallow the goal because of where Seedorf was positioned. Otherwise football is a farce.

But nobody (other than Hanlon funnily enough) has homed in on the fact that a defender DELIBERATELY played the ball. Have a look at the Law for offside which was amended a few years ago.  A defender DELIBERATELY playing at the ball can result in a player in an offside position being deemed onside. So if Seedorf had touched the ball there is a strong case that it should have stood.  Most referees ignore that ruling but it does exist. Just ask Man City who went out of the Champions League because of it three years ago. Not saying it is sensible but it is a factor and it clouds the issue. They have mucked about with the offside rule so much that it is now almost unworkable.

I think that is why Hanlon went to great lengths to emphasise that he only played at the ball because Seedorf was behind him.

But really, if we lost a goal in those circumstances every Motherwell fan would be going nuts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was Seedorf standing offside? Surly he should have been more aware and trying to get back onside rather than standing where he was? 

Ps not seen the incident yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Wellfan1984 said:

He didn't make an attempt at the ball.  When the opposition players, remember players stick their hand up for everything nowadays had no qualms with the goal you know something is amiss if it isn't given.  

Need to look back but he looked like he did to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, GazzyB said:

Anyone who thinks the goal should've stood needs to take their claret and amber specs off.

100% this. Whether the Hibs players claimed or not is irrelevant tbh, that's why we have officials to make decisions. The linesman can see he is in an offside position, the ref can see how close he is to the keeper, you can draw as many lines as you want, but unless Marciano has chronic tunnel vision then Seedorf is undoubtedly within his line of vision. Despite the fact the decision went against us this time I thought it was quite encouraging to see the officials actually communicating before making the correct decision.

In terms of the game itself I thought it was quite heartening to see us play as we did. Carson had one save to make maybe? Hibs created very little other than where we gifted them opportunities, and those are the type of things that we can iron out. The midfield 3 were excellent, not sure I agree with some of the criticism O'Hara has had about not being effective in that position as I thought he had a very good game and would've been the best midfielder on the park were it not for his two colleagues. O'Donnell was also excellent given he won't have had any sort of real pre-season.

My main concern, as others have said, is the final ball but I think that's going to click soon. In contrast to the Livingston game, White held the ball up very well and brought others into play without giving away umpteen fouls. Set pieces are a bit predictable, even when we get a good ball in it goes straight to Gallagher who instantly gives away a free kick for manhandling the defender. Lang will be a real handful when fit. Sherwin looks much improved on the tail end of last season, and am sure Hylton will contribute too once up to speed. Bit harsh to judge on that cameo maybe, but Watt didn't do much when he came on and I do wonder if there is something going on behind closed door as to why he is playing such a limited part so far.

In summary, a very encouraging performance and sets us up nicely to be brought back down to earth against Accies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wellfan1984 said:

He didn't make an attempt at the ball. 

Watch the highlights, with both eyes open this time,  you will  see he did

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spiderpig said:

Watch the highlights, with both eyes open this time,  you will  see he did

Honestly, I've watched it a few times and I still can't tell if he's trying to flick it in or jump out the way. I don't see a clear leg movement towards the ball, so I'd say it looks more like the latter. (I'd still be disallowing the goal though.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:

Why was Seedorf standing offside? Surly he should have been more aware and trying to get back onside rather than standing where he was? 

Ps not seen the incident yet. 

How can you accuse Seedorf of something you haven't even seen?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Stuwell2 said:

Why was Seedorf standing offside? Surly he should have been more aware and trying to get back onside rather than standing where he was? 

Ps not seen the incident yet. 

Seedorf challenges Hanson for the high ball that’s why his headed clearance is not very good and falls to Whyte, and his momentum carries him to where he ends up.

If you look at where he is when Whyte strikes the ball he is not in the keepers direct line of vision and as has been previously said once Hanlon  touches the ball he could be deemed to be onside.

The linesman does not put his flag up straight away and IMO the ref and the linesman new that the ball took a deflection but did not know who it came off and erred on the side of safety and just gave offside. 
 

It’s over now some you win and some you loose just hope the next tight call goes in our favour 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, dennyc said:

But nobody (other than Hanlon funnily enough) has homed in on the fact that a defender DELIBERATELY played the ball. Have a look at the Law for offside which was amended a few years ago.  A defender DELIBERATELY playing at the ball can result in a player in an offside position being deemed onside. 

I honestly thought you were talking shite but I've done my reading. You're spot-on and now my head is burst. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve looked over the incident several times now and come to the view it’s a 50/50 call. Therefore the ref was right to chalk it off. I just hope these calls even themselves out this season. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Winning by Name said:

How can you accuse Seedorf of something you haven't even seen?

Wasn’t accusing him of anything , just wondering why he was is that position. 
OK the post might be poorly written but I thought by stating that I hadn’t seen it and using a question mark that it was clearly a question and not an accusation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, grizzlyg said:

The game was 2 days ago.....goal was chopped off.....we move on

Thought it was a decent discussion. Interesting to see the different viewpoints and interpretations. Doesn’t decide it one way or the other really but the acid test is, would I have been ok with Hibs being awarded a goal like that against us and I’d say, no. So perhaps officials do have it correct but I can see that maybe going a different way in another game. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Long and short is 4 games, 58 shots, 11 on target of which 2 goals scored.

When you keep the core of your team and seemingly strengthen it in all departments then there should be no need to agonise over the wording of an offside, the perceived position of a linesman or the motives of the referee, we should have been out of sight of a surprisingly under-par Hibs by that point so that it would be inconsequential.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

Twitter @MotherwellFC

×