AW v Defending Champs June 21 @ 2am SS2,

862 replies · 97,970 views

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

To be fair to the officials, I thought that was quite a difficult one to call. Even after the first couple of replays, I wasn't 100% sure who, if anybody, had got a flick onto the free kick before it came off the defender. Smeltz was onside when the free-kick was taken, the lino and the ref obviously thought Reid hadn't got a touch onto it.

Karma

Jag2010-06-22 15:07:54

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'll say it again, benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Clearly there was a lot of doubt on this one, so the goal stood. As it says it should in the rules.

Can we put this one to bed now?

Nix, Leyton Orient and Alloa Athletic supporting schmuck.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I thought we did put it to bed before that Croat twat showed up.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Buffon II wrote:

I thought we did put it to bed before that Croat twat showed up.

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Rainman wrote:

Smeltz was offside but the goal counted, the dive won the pen, we drew with Italy.

Ahem.

Smeltz might have been offside, depending on whether Reid flicked it on. Replays are inconclusive. Only Reid actually knows.

The pulling of the shirt would have won Italy the penalty, which is a correct decision. The dive happened after that and is therefore irrelevant. Did the ref or linesman see the shirt pull? Or did they get fooled by the dive, so gave the right decision for the wrong reason? Only the ref actually knows.

Ultimately, both goals are therefore valid.

A draw is a fantastic result for NZ and a poor one for Italy, no matter what "Justice For All' says. Good on the All Whites. Let's not sully that achievement by questioning two valid refereeing decisions.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

TheJam wrote:

I'll say it again, benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Clearly there was a lot of doubt on this one, so the goal stood. As it says it should in the rules.

Not that the laws of the game give any mention of the benefit of the doubt concept.

However, an official can only give what he sees. If he doesn't see the offence, and is not alerted to it by an assistant, he can't give a decision against the offence.... so you kind of end up with a benefit of the doubt being given to the attacking team by virtue of play continuing.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I recall seeing Smeltz comment about the goal in an interview later and he said it was flicked on by Reid, and Reid was standing beside him at the time and didnt contradict that.

Which made him offside.....but the touch was too delicate for a lino or ref to pick up

Also heard on the radio a local ref's interpretation that since Smeltz was not interfering in the play in that moment (or whatever words are used to denote someone not influencing the defence) then he was ok as he later received the ball rom the Italian to score.

Which made him onside

Personally I think he was offside and it is a false ruling from the local ref, wishful thinking. What say you SINZ, I reckon you are a good clear thinker on these things

hepatitis2010-06-22 16:20:48

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The replays are not inconclusive lol. Its clear as day that he touched it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lU85rbVk9jg
34 sec in

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

hepatitis wrote:

I recall seeing Smeltz comment about the goal in an interview later and he said it was flicked on by Reid, and Reid was standing beside him at the time and didnt contradict that.

Which made him offside.....but the touch was too delicate for a lino or ref to pick up

Also heard on the radio a local ref's interpretation that since Smeltz was not interfering in the play in that moment (or whatever words are used to denote someone not influencing the defence) then he was ok as he later received the ball rom the Italian to score.

Which made him onside

Personally I think he was offside and it is a false ruling from the local ref, wishful thinking. What say you SINZ, I reckon you are a good clear thinker on these things

I suspect the local ref can't have watched the incident because he's wrong. If Smeltz is an offside position when Reid flicks it on, which Smeltz was, then he has clearly benefited from being in an offside position and has played the ball. If Reid did flick it on, the goal is an offside goal.

Two options really:

- as you say, it was offside but Reid's touch was so delicate that it was missed by the officials.

- Reid didn't flick it on but is happy to claim the assist.

I couldn't possibly say which it is. I've watched the replay so many times and still don't know for sure if Reid touched it or not.

Hey ho. It's done now.

SiNZ2010-06-22 16:29:56

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'd be very surprised if the referee and assistant saw that Reid had got a touch then decided that Smeltz wasn't gaining an advantage by being in that position.

He's standing in an offside position when Reid gets the flick,and ends up scoring, he has gained an advantage from being in that position. I just think they both missed the touch by Reid.

From the Laws of The Game:

ï¿½gaining an advantage by being in that positionï¿½ means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position

Apparently I'm apathetic, but I couldn't care less.

"Being a Partick Thistle fan sets you apart. It means youre a free thinker. It also means your team has no money." Tim Luckhurst, The Independent, 4th December 2003

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

SiNZ wrote:

Two options really:

- as you say, it was offside but Reid's touch was so delicate that it was missed by the officials.

This, from the replays, is pretty much what happened in my opinion. The touch from Reid was very slight and incredibly difficult for the lino to spot from 30m away, so it's perfectly understandable that he didn't raise the flag.

Can we put this to bed now please.el grapadura2010-06-23 10:19:33

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Even if Winston Reid flicked the ball on the referee still has to make a subjective decision about whether Smeltz was either:

- interfering with play

- interfering with an opponent or

- gaining an advantage from being in that position

I would have said he wasn't doing either of the first two. He was possibly gaining an advantage from being in that position but only between when Reid (might have) flicked it on to when Cannavaro touched it and played him back onside - literally a split second. It's the ref's call though, he isn't automatically offside just because he's in that position.

Anyway, to help resolve this I've put the facts into my Sinclair ZX Spectrum and come up with this:

Percentage likelihood that Reid actually touched the ball = 62%

Percentage likelihood that Smeltz was gaining an advantage between Reid and Cannavaro's touches = 65%

Therefore, total overall likelihood that Smeltz was offside = 40% (ie. 62% x 65%)

I also asked the computer what was the percentage likelihood that De Rossi is a dirty diver who went down faster than a Catholic Priest in the boy's dorm after lights out. Computer says 100%.

So there you go.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

terminator_x wrote:

I would have said he wasn't doing either of the first two.ï¿½He was possibly gaining anï¿½advantage from being in that position but only between when Reid (might have) flicked it on to when Cannavaro touched it and played him back onside - literally a split second.

ï¿½

Wrong - the ball deflecting off the defender does not make the player in the offside position suddenly onside.

Refer to the laws of the game.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Are you saying my ZX Spectrum is wrong??

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

terminator_x wrote:

Even if Winston Reid flicked the ball on the referee still has to make a subjective decision about whether Smeltz was either:

- interfering with play

- interfering with an opponent or

- gaining an advantage from being in that position

Sorry terminator but that's one of the worst misrepresentations of the offside law I think I've seen in a long while and it's completely wrong.

That's not how the offside law works. You can't be played back onside by a rebound off a defender. Jag pasted the relevand wording from the laws of the game a couple of posts up. I suggest you read that.

PS I like the idea of the model, but the inputs are wrong:

Percentage likelihood that Reid actually touched the ball = 62% (assume this is okay for now)

Percentage likelihood that Smeltz was gaining an advantage between Reid and Cannavaro's touches = 100% (he got the ball and scored - it doesn't get any more advantageous than that)

Therefore, total overall likelihood that Smeltz was offside = 62% (ie. 62% x 100%)

SiNZ2010-06-22 17:19:56

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

el grapadura wrote:

SiNZ wrote:

Two options really:

- as you say, it was offside but Reid's touch was so delicate that it was missed by the officials.

This, from the replays, is pretty much hat happened in my opinion. The touch from Reid was very slight and incredibly difficult for the lino to spot from 30m away, so it's perfectly understandable that he didn't raise the flag.

Can we put this to bed now please.

You'd like to think so, but it is amazing how many people have their own private model of the offside law in their head

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I liked this from a couple of pages back:

The simple offside rule for women: If the flag goes up, it's f**king offside - OK ?

How's my driving? - Whine here

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

The guy with the whistle said it was a goal, we ended up drawing 1-1 with Italy, we were written off by the press.We get a result like that and you want to question it ffs have rugby fans taken over this place

Enjoy what is an incredible result and be happy

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

giddyup wrote:

Well said giddyup.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

not sure if this has been posted yet but hey :

our friend MR Rossi... boycott Ferarri i say

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJX9gvNHYWQ

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I don't think people on here can afford Ferrari's as it is mate.

Three for me, and two for them.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I'm kind of sick of people talking about the calls instead of the result tbh - crap calls went both ways and a draw was fair in the end

a.haak

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

valeo wrote:

I'm kind of sick of people talking about the calls instead of the result tbh - crap calls went both ways and a draw was fair in the end

You could always unsub from the thread if its content does not interest you!

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

SiNZ wrote:

Therefore, total overall likelihood that Smeltz was offside = 62%

Right, I see now. As long as Smeltz is still less guilty than a Catholic Priest I think we can still claim the moral high-ground.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

terminator_x wrote:

SiNZ wrote:

Therefore, total overall likelihood that Smeltz was offside = 62%

Right, I see now. As long as Smeltz is still less guilty than a Catholic Priest I think we can still claim the moral high-ground.

Charles Manson is less guilty than a Catholic Priest...

http://c0508042.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/100331C1L.jpg

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Messy wrote:

Yea I know what you mean, I'm gonna say that was one of the only instances where we gave away a legitimate free kick.

Are you suggesting the other 23 free kicks were not legitimate?
Get real.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

TheJam wrote:

I'll say it again, benefit of the doubt goes to the attacking side. Clearly there was a lot of doubt on this one, so the goal stood. As it says it should in the rules.

Can we put this one to bed now?

I was under the impression that the benefit went to the defending side.

If you are old and wise you were probably young and stupid

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

i hope Brown can make subs bench

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think he will seeing as he has the last two games...

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

In an offside situation I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be in that attacking teams favor if there's any doubt.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I don't know where these ideas of doubt going this way or the other come from. Certainly not the Laws of the Game. The idea is simple - the official calls what or his assistants see. That is all. If you don't see something you don't give it. There isn't any judgement process by which you say, hang on that favours the defender or that favours the attacker.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

darkhorse wrote:

i hope Brown can make subs bench

Pretty sure FIFA will supply one already assembled

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

SiNZ wrote:

Which I guess can be in turn interpreted as the attacker 'getting the benefit of the doubt'. Also if it's a line ball and you're unsure, don't blow the whistle.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

valeo wrote:

I'm kind of sick of people talking about the calls instead of the result tbh - crap calls went both ways and a draw was fair in the end

F..k Haak if you posted more like that around the traps I'd buy you a drink if I had the chance.

Pleasure to read quality responses like that (being sincere here), I'll lift my game too in terms of post quality if you keep that up! :)

PS - Italy did play you guys off the park (where's HN"s statistics

but you guys have momentum and "fight" in the tank at the moment. All the best with it.

DS
diego's son2010-06-22 22:20:06

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

My mate just sent me this and I couldn't stop laughing I thought you lot would definitely appreciate it.

Italy Training camp

probably been posted already, but hell, so true.

We will never fully decide who has won the football.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Oh yay, a compliment from Diego's Son. My life is complete.

Can't say I agree with 90% of what you say Diego's Son so you agreeing with me is a little bit unnerving to tell you the truth.valeo2010-06-22 22:40:23

a.haak

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

timmymadden wrote:

SiNZ wrote:

Which I guess can be in turn interpreted as the attacker 'getting the benefit of the doubt'. Also if it's a line ball and you're unsure, don't blow the whistle.

Or the defender, depending on who got away with something that wasn't picked up.

Look at the post Ginger made in the thread of referee performances about the NZ ref's performance report as an aside of interest.

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

I think what we need to remember iis smetz off side was still an error of the Lino at that speed I suggest no one could see the touch. . The dive by man of match Italian actor was cheating deliberate and to do nothing than to sucker the ref in cause despite thier dominance could not score. . Case closed. skylab892010-06-22 22:44:28

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

Must've been removed SiNZ

Permalink

over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago

valeo wrote:

Oh yay, a compliment from Diego's Son. My life is complete.

Can't say I agree with 90% of what you say Diego's Son so you agreeing with me is a little bit unnerving to tell you the truth.

You know you're wrong when DS agrees with you

Allegedly

Permalink