Not sure if serious or retarded?

Are you trying to encourage longballery my dear lad?

-PB

I thought it was off at first look , but so close , I reckon they should just change the rule and make no offsides, like they have done in hockey, that way the defense just have to deal with it. No interpretation required!

Its just so frustrating when a player who is level gets called offside. I hate it. Frustrating beyond belief. But I would be a hypocrite if I said that if I was a Mariner fan I wouldn't have been upset about the Mehmet goal. It was clearly off.

If they are serious about getting it right it should be adressed amongst the referees pre-season and next season a lot more will be let go, hopefully.

Simply put - it was a close call and it was understandable that a linesman missed it during play - rather than anyone with the benefit of hindsight. I was nowhere near in line at the game and thought he was offside - but that was just a feeling because he seemd to have so much room. On replay in normal time - from the linesman point of view it was a very well timed run that would have been very difficult to call offside.

The difference between this weeks offside and last weeks was massive - both in the ineptitude shown last week and the fact that last week's call killed the tie. The Mariners had ample opportunity to come back this week and simply were not good enough.

Good luck to Perth next week!!

BTW - credit to Tony Sage - he seemed to thank every Perth player, coach and supporter in the ground.

No part of the attackers head, body or legs can be closer to the goal than the defender. A leg trailing behind doesn't make it onside. I guess the arms are left out of it because you can't play the ball with them unless your name is Maradona. ;)

Having run the line a few times many years ago it is extremely difficult to get the close ones right.

When they showed the replay and paused it, I thought he was clearly offside. It was a good camera angle and the 18 yard box assisted the TV viewer in making the call. Then when I saw the goal at normal speed I could understand how the assistant referee may have missed it. Also, I think there was another Perth player that may have slightly obstructed his view of the run.

Whilst the assistant referee made the wrong decision, I can understand the error.

Bottom line is that CCM had ample opportunity to win this game but they didn't.

Yet if they are level is it onside? So does the attackers trailing leg being onside with the defenders body constitute it being onside?

And interesting, I didn't think arms mattered anyway, I thought it was body vs body.

Edited by Axelv: 14/4/2012 11:02:35 PM

The arms are specifically excluded from the assessment of offside. It is the head, body and legs that are not to be closer to the goal than the ball and the second last player.

No in full speed it's to hard to say. This is what justify's the decision. The linesman doesn't have the luxury of super slow-mo replays.

Decisions can't/shouldn't ever be made in doubt. You put the flag up if you see something. If you don't see anything you have no cause to put the flag up (or blow a whistle). "Doubt" is a ridiculous concept. It may not actually even exist in a professional adjudicator's mind. It has no place there. I concede it seems to exist in the sur-reality of commentary, but that's often mindless.

Slater is a fully paid-up CCM old boy. You have to expect that it colours his commentary. Not sure you have to accept though. Sigh...you probably do have to if you have to have the volume up.

Technically it should be possible in the digital world to block a specific commentator. I'd give friggin zillions for an "Eddie-block".

Edited by SWandP: 14/4/2012 10:51:19 PM

So basically most of you are arguing that slightly offside goals should be given that's bullshit

A lot of the time when there is alot of doubt with an offside call the assistant referee just guesses and goes with their gut feeling rather then giving the benefit of the doubt to anyone in particular.

Offside for me requires daylight between the defender and the attacker otherwise benefit of the doubt.

I called it on side!
Seriously the Mariners need to ask why Kwasnik missed all those chances.
And Arnie, of course your not bitter...

Arnie?

The Perth body was further in front of the Central Coast body, it was offside but only just! When the referee isn't sure, the attackers get the benefit of the doubt, it was very very close and there was enough doubt to justify the decision, anyone that complains about this is a cry baby!

'Level' is not giving benefit of the doubt. 'Level' is on-side.

It was a fraction offside but watching at full speed it's too hard to tell so that justify's the decision in my book. On another note what did you guys think about the penalty decision. I can see why it was given but it was very soft. He was falling regardless of being touched.

Yes when their level not when he's half a body length offside
-.-

The arm and leg of the Perth striker were level with the body of the last Central Coast defender.

It was very close and the people I saw the game with agreed that it was just offside. 0.1 second earlier and it was onside, it was so close to call and was in that split second, even though it was just offside there was enough doubt for it to be correct.

The decision was okay, it deserved to be a goal.

Edited by Axelv: 14/4/2012 10:32:31 PM

Harper, Cockerill, Speed and Slater in particular are all idiots. It's that simple.

Good point. In this case, there was a glory player obscuring the "line" of the defence, it was tight, Mehmet was moving and as always, a linesman has to be able to see both the attacker, defenders and the ball being passed - ALL at the same time. Its not just a matter of getting line with the defence - hence the fact that there are regular "mistakes".

Understand fans/coaches blowing up, but in the cold light of day, these decisions will continue to happen and its part of the luck.

Agree 100%

Does anyone else think it's a bit hypocritical the way that commentators always say they want to see linesmen give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team, yet as soon as they do, the same commentators show super slow motion footage to prove that it was indeed off-side.

They then spend the rest of the game talking about the 'controversial' decision and 'praising' the official when he 'gets one right'.

After showing the slow-mo they could easily show the footage at normal speed and point out, "That's what the official saw." In most cases there is considerable doubt.