Interfering With Play?.

[Mac]

Watched the Portsmouth v Man City game and Dunns goal, while rare and unusual, was clearly off-side. Vassell was deemed not to be "active", but he took up a position directly in front of the keeper, clearly impeding his view, clearly active, thus clearly off-side.

 

This rule really grinds my hump, if we allow "interpertation" to be used in the judgement of one rule, doesn't this bring into question many others which cause uncertainty?.

 

A return to the old off-side rule or a clear statement on the issue from FIFA is surely the way forward.

 

Just wondering if anyone else has a view on this or any other silly rule, ie leaving the pitch after treatment or stiffer punishments for theatrical overacting.

 

ATB

 

Mac

[Bill]

A return to the old off-side rule or a clear statement on the issue from FIFA is surely the way forward.

..............................

 

Dont know why they dont get rid of it altogether, its 11 against 11 and if the centre forward wants to stand in the 6 yard box, its up to the opponents to send somebody back to mark him. It would stop all the congestion in the middle of the park and allow more open attacking play, and make it a better, more enjoyable spectacle. imo.

[MikeO]

A return to the old off-side rule or a clear statement on the issue from FIFA is surely the way forward.

..............................

 

Dont know why they dont get rid of it altogether, its 11 against 11 and if the centre forward wants to stand in the 6 yard box, its up to the opponents to send somebody back to mark him. It would stop all the congestion in the middle of the park and allow more open attacking play, and make it a better, more enjoyable  spectacle. imo.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

...that's a fairly radical approach but it would certainly stop a lot of arguments. It's a thankless task being an official and they are rarely in a position to accurately judge "activity" or otherwise. Be worth a try at a lower level to see what happens..

[Mac]

Licker's idea is radical, but the amount of faffing around it would save could be worth it, plus a big advantage is that we wouldn't have to listen to Hansen and Lawrensen gob off all the f*cking time.

 

Mikeo, by lower level do you possibly mean the SPL?.

 

ATB

 

Mac

[Guest fozzie22]

FIFA couldnt come up with a clear statement if it ate thier arseholes tbh

[Pat]

Sorry Bill, but I cant have no offside...Give it 20 yrs & All we would be producing is Giants & Tall timber long ball specialist's....May as well then be wathcing Basketball or that stupid aerial ping pong thing they play here down under.

 

Just an opinion of course & whilst your's is as mentioned a tad bit radical I have heard it mooted before. ( there is some train of thoguht in that direction)

 

You no football should be a simple game, Referees have always been open to slather,

 

However...What then do the powers that be do for them...make it more complicated & the rule has become really intricate & open to individual interpretation.

 

To many Grey areas, whode be a ref eh ?.

 

As for FIFA, well......I can honestly envisage a day or time when some Squillionaire or akin gets on board ( to make more money of course), Funds some kind of brealway, to then the game could bve never the same as we no it.

 

Good or bad thing who knows?.

 

Maybe still let Fifa run their tournaments etc, but leave the running of the games to those closer to the pitch.

 

Still couldnt see the ego driven dinosaurs of the games governing bodies giving up their prestiguos positons without 1st trying to ruin the game.

 

Out of touch, out of line, out of order. (sounds like a boardroom we all no closer 2 home )

 

Glad to get that of my chest, feel much better now.