http://mauveandyellowarmy.net/
Printable View
Doesn't look like the article has been posted yet Bob
Thanks for the write up Paul, quality as usual. From where I was in Canton (and if my memory serves me correctly), the Newcastle player touched the ball. Zahore seemed to step over him and scoop the ball over him while he was down and then the linos flag went up. He may have been offside before the Newcastle player slid in a challenge, but the Linos flag stayed down.
Spedger
Mine, or the Chris Wathan one I referred to? Looks like they're both there to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
When I click on the link it just goes to the quiz
I put the quiz answers on there this morning before I started the Newcastle piece, so that might explain it, but I've just Googled Mauve and Yellow Army now and it took me to the bit on the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
I felt exactly the same. If you were guessing (and I suspect he was from that distance) the more likely event was the player touching the ball.Quote:
One last thing, perhaps someone who was closer to the incident or someone who saw it on television, could tell me whether the linesman on the Ninian Stand side of the ground really did make an absolute howler of a decision when one of the Newcastle defenders slipped on the ball in the second half and left Zohore with a run in on goal from the side of the penalty area? Yes, Zohore was originally in an offside position, but everyone around by me, sat about fifteen yards behind the official, thought the Newcastle player had touched the ball, thus playing our striker onside – was that how it happened or did the centreback just fall over and not touch the ball?
I also saw the linesman stand within the field of play rather than on the correct side of the line which I have never seen before.
Thanks Spedger, I can understand the linesman not raising his flag until Zohore had the ball because that was when he made a move to come into play after having been in an offside position, but, surely, the Newcastle player touching the ball must mean Zohore was then onside, even though he hadn't been a few seconds earlier? To you, me and plenty of people sat around by me it looked as if Zohore had been played onside and the lino had cocked it up - the only reason I can come up with as to why the flag went up is that it was thought that the Newcastle player had not touched the ball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloop_Jon_Bee
Got it through Googling it.
Strange.
Sounds like you had a similar view on things to me.
Although for the offside decision I just thought that the linesman had spotted Zohore offside and had assumed he was not interfering with play until the defender fell over and then maybe adjudged he'd fallen over due to Zohore's presence.
I just took it as 'one of those things'.
I also had a heavy nosebleed for some strange reason for 15 minutes in the middle of the 1st half, which made my retire under the stand.
This must have been when Richards made his heavy tackle ?
As I don't recall that at all.
In fact it was a very clean game overall, for a Warnock side we seem to have had a lot of those- maybe another indication of a side taking it a little bit easy ?
Richards was booked in the second half (he slid in on the half way line with his boot slightly raised) and I don't think the ref could be criticised for that decision, can't remember one in the first half though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lawnmower
I agree it was a clean game - I thought Warnock would have had City really wound up and the tackles would be flying in given his history with Benitez.
Richards tackle was 2nd half. Middle of the pitch and on another day a ref could have given a red.
I didnt go last night. Might be one of those that looks far worse when you see it on TV.
Zahore was well offside for the other instant. Flag was always going to go up when he chased their player down.
I thought the disallowed goal was harsh. The free kick for their goal was a clear foul.
I dont think we are far off being a challenging team. Dont understand why Halford was in the side instead of Ralls. Also think Pilkington would have been a better bet than Noone. Midfield was much better with the introduction of Ralls and Pilkington.
If what Zohore did wasn't deemed to be a foul (the free kick was only given when Zohore took the ball, not when the Newcastle player fell over), then it seems wrong to me to make the leap that the Newcastle defender only fell over and touched the ball because of his presence - last I heard, the benefit of any doubt with offside decisions should go to the attacking side, but in this case the defending side seem to have been given it twice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
I've never been one to blame officials for any loses we have, especially now the infamous Barry Knight has long gone. We are certainly quite a way behind Newcastle who deserved their win last night. Their cutting edge and quality was evident and perhaps just as significantly the squad depth embarrassed us somewhat.
But the ref was awful. The challenge which ended Kadeems game and perhaps season went unpunished and I thought that Newcastle were given much more benefit of doubt than we were throughout.
Paul, thought Zahore was offside and I don't understand 'phases of play' well enough to make a significant contribution but it looked a harsh decision when a defender touches the ball.
Overall thought we looked tired and leggy.
I am not sure some of the criticism I've seen aimed at certain players is deserved. Much has been asked of them since Warnock took over and with such a small squad they have trained and played to maximum levels to essentially rescue our season. Let's give them a break.
In a way I am pleased with last night as it reiterates the areas we need to strengthen... Guile, pace and finishing and a little more steel and workrate in the middle of the park.
Jazz was super again and made some excellent challenges.
Cheers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
Must not have thought Richards' foul was that bad at the time then, as it hardly registered with me or those around me.
As for the free kick, fair enough- benefit of seeing it on TV I guess.
Also definitely agree with Ralls and Pilkington over Halford and NooneQuote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
It wasnt benefit of the doubt though. Zahore was clearly offside and when he interfered the flag went up.Im pretty certain he didnt flag for a foul he was on the other side of the pitch. If hes flagged for a foul hes got that wrong and hes missed the offside. Otherwise hes made the right decision on the offside though he could have flagged a couple of seconds earlier.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
Maybe another decision that TV gives a better perspective of.
They looked at this in summarising and agreed a correct decision was made and id agree.
Newcastle also should have had 2 penalties. One against Halford first half and one against Richards 2nd.
The ref didnt have a great night but it wasnt all against us.
Though would Morrissons goal have been disallowed if it had been a Newcastle player at St James - I doubt it.
Just seen this again and you're completely right. When the ball gets played through, Zohore quickly steps back into an onside position before continuing his run. This fools the commentator but not the officials. The flag could go up sooner but I suppose it's only when he touches the ball that he's directly affecting the play. It's the same as when a long range shot comes in when a player is an offside position. As long as he's not in the keeper's way then he's not offside but if the the keeper saves it and it falls to him then he is. The keeper touching the ball doesn't play the striker onside, it's irrelevant, it's whether the striker is involved or not that matters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilts
I think I am joining those who don't understand phases of play enough to comment. It's clear Zohore was offside when the ball was played but then the defender touched it, we believe, and only after Zohore stole it off him did the flag go up. For me a defender touching the ball should be different to the keeper doing so - the keeper should have special status.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loramski
My initial reaction was the same as yours and TOBW's but I think it's an age thing with me. I'm sure there used to be a rule that as soon as the ball touched a defender it automtically played everyone onside but that can't have been the case for around 40 years yet my instincts still tell me it is. Definitely offside last night but I'm confused as to what would've happened if the defender had deliberately passed it back to the keeper and Zohore had nipped in and scored. I think that's a goal but I'm not sure where the line is between the two incidents.Quote:
Originally Posted by surge
Been doing some research and FIFA's Laws of the Game 2014/15 states the following-
"A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage."
So, assuming there has not been a further change since then, it seems to me that the linesman deemed the contact with the ball by the Newcastle player to be accidental and so Zohore was offside - I've only seen the incident the once and am unlikely to see it again, so I can't really comment either way on whether he was right in his interpretation of what happened.
You've been a bit selective there unless I've completely misread the offside laws. An 'offside' player can also be penalised if he interferes with an opponent by;Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
a) challenging an opponent for the ball
b) clearly attempting to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent
c) making an obvious action which impacts on an opponent's ability to play the ball
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-...w-11---offside
I'd say Zohore was offside three times rather than none in this instance, I'm not even sure if the Newcastle player touched the ball so it may be four. Like I say though, there must be a big grey area here. If the defender stays on his feet and underhits a back pass which Zohore intercepts and scores from, how can the ref determine whether Zohore's presence 'impacted on the defender's ability to play the ball'? Very subjective. The defender would say he felt Zohore's presence behind him and had to rush the pass. Surely it would be much easier in this case for the linesman to raise his flag as soon as the attacker moves towards the ball?
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the foul by Perez on Harris. He only got a stern word from the Ref but it was a yellow at least. The Morrison disallowed goal was correct as he had his arm over the defender to stop him jumping. Richards was lucky not to be sent off.
I also thought the defender didn't touch the ball during the Zohore offside. Either way as soon as he went chasing after th defender he should have been flagged.
Having said that without playing with much urgency or desire we should have gotten a draw out of the game.
Great write up as usual just wondering why you omitted the lack of youngsters being involved in the blog?
Seeing that you are a massive supporter of the up and coming youngsters, do you think NW as given the
youngsters a fair crack because last season you were right down on the manager for the same reason?
Surely the point is that while there is a general acceptance that Zohore was offside at times in the move before the Newcastle player touched the ball, but at none of these times was he deemed to be offside by the official. The linesman was right in front of me and did not wave his flag until Zohore touched the ball, so he didn't believe there had been a foul, he clearly judged our player to be offside, hence I quoted the part of the law that it seems to me he applied to this incident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loramski
You mention "grey areas". Time was when there was no such thing in football, the laws were clear and easy to understand for everyone and, although they may disagree at times with how they were applied by the officials, spectators were at least clear in the knowledge as to why a decision had been made.
There was a time under the old offside law where FIFA stated that any benefit of the doubt with offside decisions should be applied to attacking players rather than defending ones. For me, that was a change for the better and there was never any need for the complicated changes that have prompted around twenty posts in this thread arguing from different points of view without us still really knowing why the linesman raised his flag at the time that he did - more proof that the modern day offside law is an ass.
Here's what I said in another thread yesterday;-Quote:
Originally Posted by Tandy
"I must have dreamt that Warnock gave a league debut to an eighteen year old and a first team debut to a 21 year old who was playing non league football six months ago last week."
Quote:
Originally Posted by AfricanBluebird
Just the thought of Barry Knight of Orpington makes my blood boil!
I agree about Jazz, one of the most improved players since Warnock arrived in my opinion. Prior to that I was wondering if we had made a mistake in signing him.
One of the problems City have had for the last 3 seasons is something I've constantly commented on - ie, the lack of goalscoring ability from players other than our 'recognised strikers'. For me, with modern football, it's essential that there are at least 3 or 4 others who can strike a ball hard and accurately when given the chance.We are powder-puff weak in front of goal, and I would hope that any new midfield players Warnock brings in, will have a good scoring record.
That's another reason why I'm not excactly overwhelmed with the news that Hoillett and Harris are going to be here next season. If you're looking for a top 6 postition, I don't think either of these two would be regular fixtures in the team..
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Quiet Monkfish
I am not convinced that either will be a regular fixture next season. Warnock has talked about having a stronger bench & this is where I think we will see both of them for parts of next season. Harris in particular will be a good weapon to have on the bench if we need to chase a goal.
To be fair, the first line of the offside laws says 'it is not an offence to be in an offside position'. That was brought in to give a built-in advantage to attackers, and to the game itself. It means there are less offsides because the linesman doesn't have to raise his flag unless he feels the attacker is interfering with play. It's a good rule but obviously it's open to the interpretation of what constitutes 'interfering with play' at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by the other bob wilson
The confusion with the Zohore incident comes from that. Zohore was clearly in an offside position when the ball was played but checked his run so he was now quite a distance behind both defender and ball. The linesman probably felt that he was far enough away to be not affecting the play so didn't raise his flag. If Zohore stops then play can go on but he carries on running, puts pressure on the defender, challenges him then takes the ball which, like I said, makes him offside three times over. There's no doubt to give him the benefit of.
My sympathy is totally with the defender here. He's caught Zohore offside and should be rewarded with an instant flag and a free-kick. Instead, he finds himself running towards the byline with Zohore somewhere behind him. He can't leave the ball, in case the linesman has missed the fact that Zohore was in an offside position, but if he starts playing it then Zohore might suddenly become onside again (because of the rule you highlighted) and take it off him (or intercept a mishit pass). I'm all for letting the game flow but as soon as Zohore started running for the ball the flag should've gone up.