Post match thank you Bendtner thread

[Kenneth]

No one really knows that, not even the refs and that is the problem with the "new" offside rule.

I think it's clear that the goal would have stood.

[Exiled_red]

I remember a few years ago someone was in an offside position and let the ball go through his legs and his team mate ran on to it and scored and the goal stood, so I'm guessing under the current rules if he didn't touch the ball the goal would have stood as he wasn't blocking any defender from getting the ball.

Am not 100% though

[leftpeg]

I think it's clear that the goal would have stood.

Really? If you are an attacking player standing practically on the goal line are you truly not interfering with play? There is too much room for interpretation in this rule and I hope it is addressed in the summer.

[DannyMan2006]

I remember a few years ago someone was in an offside position and let the ball go through his legs and his team mate ran on to it and scored and the goal stood, so I'm guessing under the current rules if he didn't touch the ball the goal would have stood as he wasn't blocking any defender from getting the ball.

Am not 100% though

A goal we scored v Blackburn. Cisse let it run through his legs. I think Fowler scored it. That one should not have stood though and this was stated by the head of the refs, Keith Hackett I think it is.

I would have thought that the one last night WOULD have stood, as Bendtner only really affected the game once he touched the ball.

[chadrtc]

I think it's clear that the goal would have stood.

I don't think it is at all. A player can't jump over the ball and not be interfering with play as far as i'm concerned, and i'm sure thats the way most officials would see it as well.

At the end of the day though, the one thing i'm sure we can all agree on is that the offside rule in its current state is a right mess, with inconsistancies popping up every week. The very fact that we can't give ourselves a deffinitive answer by reading the rules of the game, as to weather or not the goal would've stood had he jumped over it, is frankly bonkers!

[MattB]

I don't think it is at all. A player can't jump over the ball and not be interfering with play as far as i'm concerned, and i'm sure thats the way most officials would see it as well.

At the end of the day though, the one thing i'm sure we can all agree on is that the offside rule in its current state is a right mess, with inconsistancies popping up every week. The very fact that we can't give ourselves a deffinitive answer by reading the rules of the game, as to weather or not the goal would've stood had he jumped over it, is frankly bonkers!

But no LFC player was in a positon to stop it crossing the line, therefore there was no 'play' to interfere with.

[chadrtc]

But no LFC player was in a positon to stop it crossing the line, therefore there was no 'play' to interfere with.

We can go round in circles about this all day, but we'll never know if the goal would've stood as the current offside rule is so wishy washy and open to interpretation.

I personally couldn't give a rats arse, as Bentdners moment of Traore like magic meant that we didn't have to worry about it anyway!

[Galb]

We can go round in circles about this all day, but we'll never know if the goal would've stood as the current offside rule is so wishy washy and open to interpretation.

Actually, I was suprised to read a pretty good piece on this a few weeks back in the Guardian explaining what the law says. Apparently, they redrafted it in 2005 to make it very clear but (surprise, surprise) the lazy-arse pundits who get paid to tell us all about the game havent bothered to keep up to date.

The link is here:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2267604,00.html

And the short version is, a player is only offside if they:
(a) touch the ball (not attempting to touch it, actually touching it).
(b) are blocking an opponent's line of vision.
(c) do something to distract an opponent (like dummy to play it).
(d) gain an advantage from the ball rebounding to them off the post or another player.

So if Bendtner had jumped out of the way, he wouldnt have been offside.

Now whether the referee would have got it right ....

[MattB]

Actually, I was suprised to read a pretty good piece on this a few weeks back in the Guardian explaining what the law says. Apparently, they redrafted it in 2005 to make it very clear but (surprise, surprise) the lazy-arse pundits who get paid to tell us all about the game havent bothered to keep up to date.

The link is here:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2267604,00.html

And the short version is, a player is only offside if they:
(a) touch the ball (not attempting to touch it, actually touching it).
(b) are blocking an opponent's line of vision.
(c) do something to distract an opponent (like dummy to play it).
(d) gain an advantage from the ball rebounding to them off the post or another player.

So if Bendtner had jumped out of the way, he wouldnt have been offside.

Now whether the referee would have got it right ....

^^^ what he said

[AFII]

Actually, I was suprised to read a pretty good piece on this a few weeks back in the Guardian explaining what the law says. Apparently, they redrafted it in 2005 to make it very clear but (surprise, surprise) the lazy-arse pundits who get paid to tell us all about the game havent bothered to keep up to date.

The link is here:

http://football.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2267604,00.html

And the short version is, a player is only offside if they:
(a) touch the ball (not attempting to touch it, actually touching it).
(b) are blocking an opponent's line of vision.
(c) do something to distract an opponent (like dummy to play it).
(d) gain an advantage from the ball rebounding to them off the post or another player.

So if Bendtner had jumped out of the way, he wouldnt have been offside.

Now whether the referee would have got it right ....

Eh, he would have been offside even if he jumped out of the way because no one really knows if he tried to touch it or not in some strange way and he blocked the vision for some tenths of a second for Hyypia and Reina even that it probably wouldn't have mattered but no one can know that for sure and he got an advantage because it would have been like a dummy if he jumped over it.

[MattB]

Eh, he would have been offside even if he jumped out of the way because no one really knows if he tried to touch it or not in some strange way and he blocked the vision for some tenths of a second for Hyypia and Reina even that it probably wouldn't have mattered but no one can know that for sure and he got an advantage because it would have been like a dummy if he jumped over it.

Not that it matters but that is simply not true. Neither Reina nor Hyypia were in a position to stop it crossing the line - only Bendtner was - so whether he was a distraction is entirely moot

[AFII]

It wasn't a penalty by the way, a clear dive by Hleb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gGGU0NHdk

[Dhav]

Definitely not convinced it was a 100% stone-wall penalty. Look at the replay from in front of the incident ie the angle that Sky showed during the game but not subsequently in their news bulletins where they decried how Arsenal were "denied a penalty". Hleb is already off-balance, Kuyt tugs him, pulls him a little bit, but he doesn't push him in the direction in which Hleb falls. And Hleb falls theatrically to boot. From that angle it looks a 50-50. But Sky never repeated it did they?

[Dhav]

It wasn't a penalty by the way, a clear dive by Hleb

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9gGGU0NHdk

All the clips I saw on Sky's news bullteins last night on SSN never showed the incident from that angle, and from that angle it looks at best a 50-50. Not a stone-waller

[Shaggy]

Yep that's what I said during the game - NOT a stone-wall pen and debatable at best. This morning I saw that Daily Mirror pleb Darren Lewis on SSN and he called it "the most blatant penalty since Sky Sports began covering football in 1992".

What a ****ing moron.