Phoenix City - Farewell

Your #WhyILoveTheASBP hashtag is amazing!

And you haven't even included the referees Dale!

Give me time....

Another very listenable pod. Well done!

I looked up the much maligned NZ Knights after your conversations about home defeats, to find they are indeed much maligned. The most goals ever conceded at home was 4 (only once in their final season and twice in their first season), and even shipping 3 goals at home was uncommon.

Knights > Jets.

I posted this in the match fred, may provide talking points for the next pod:

8 games without a win.

2 points from a possible 24.

6 goals scored, 18 conceded.

And to top it off, three of those 8 games have been against the bottom two clubs.

We are also only 4 points ahead of CCM and goal difference of only 3 better than them now too.

#WoodenSpon

So how much longer do we get the pod?

Credit to you guys for keeping it up during the apocolypse.

Did one last night apparently.  Photomac posted a photo of Siggy at a microphone on Twitter

Awesome, can't wait to hear Siggy!

The latest episode of Phoenix City is out now at http://yellowfever.co.nz/podcasts and in your favourite podcast app!

A trip to Christchurch doesn't yield a better result for the Nix, going down 3-1 to the Mariners. Ben Sigmund joined the pod to chat about the upcoming game against Perth, and we wrap up all the action in the ASB Premiership.

http://thekidsareallwhite.podomatic.com/entry/2016...

That's some tirade, Patrick. 

More angry Patrick in future podcasts please.

Sorry Patrick but that 3rd goal is not offside.

1 - Gains an advantage from being in that position - not relevant

2 - Interferes with play - he has to touch the ball. He did not

3 - Interferes with an opponent - the new interpretations specifically relate to movements or gestures that affect an opponent’s line of sight or movements towards an opponent that have an effect him playing the ball. Simply running through the offside line is not interfering with an opponent because being in an offside position is not an offence in itself.

As for the red card in the Perth-Melbourne game, consider the level of force, violence and brutality for a kick to the ankle. Does that warrant a red card?

I'd need to watch it again, but u felt that Ferreira prevented the defender (Fenton) from being able to  play the ball by running towards it.

Also, isn't the interfering rule defined as "playing or touching"? Does running towards the ball and getting within 5cm not constitute playing the ball? Or is the reference to playing in Law 11 redundant and it's simply touching the ball that interferes with play?

He gets so close (he could have touched it and has every intention to until the very last second) and does draw our players away/delay their runs to cover. Fair enough to rule it the way they did but not every offside decision does the ref wait until the offside player plays the ball - I know they will be taking into account the possibility of another attacker getting the ball - but if offsides are ONLY called if the player interferes with play then defenders will get used to not appealing until the player plays the ball.

I think he obviously runs across Fenton's line. Whether Fenton would have got there otherwise is debatable, but I can't see how you can say he didn't interference (based on what Chris has said in pont 3 and then watching that gif)

He runs a direct line between the defender and the ball, gets awfully close to both and yet that doesn't constitute interference? Weak.

but if he didn't run that line the exact same thing would have happened. He didn't interfere. 

I'll cover the key points again

1: he does not touch the ball. This is pretty much a key requirement for interfering with play

2: being in an offside position alone is not an offence. He must be in an offside position AND interfere with play, opponent or gain an advantage so unless he handles or checks a defender from his offside position, the run is of no consequence to offside. He does not interfere with Fenton because that is not the definition of interfering with an opponent. Using real world language you would probably say 'yes he does'. Using FIFA definitions, he does not.

3: When the other guy gains control of the ball, you are effectively a next phase of play so he is behind the ball and now onside

I know it's easy to go 'well that's offside because of this and...' but FIFA have narrowed the scoped right down to what specifically is offside. The decision by the AR, in my opinion, is world class and it will be used in future coaching around great decision making I am sure. I also see that there is a task force together rewriting the laws to remove anomalies and simplify the wording to understand the laws better so hopefully this law is one that gets the focus in terms of wording.

Either way, we are shark and would have conceded,

Got to assume your correct re the offside - and in that case the law needs tweaking again because while under the current laws that might not be offside the reality is that it should have been.

Very interesting Chris. Thanks for the in depth explanations.

The one thing that sticks out for me is this line "Using real world language you would probably say 'yes he does'. Using FIFA definitions, he does not."

That shark bugs me as common sense should over rule everything and as most people have pointed out he actually does interfere with play (in common sense language).

But I also understand ambiguity must be removed and that's why FIFA explicitly define everything - and that can sometimes mean it'll be 'wrongly' applied. I guess you just hope it's 1 in a thousand situations, not 1 in 50.

I don't like the ambiguity being removed. It lessens the ability for common sense to be used when referees interpret the law. 

Should have a shepherding rule.

And a seagulling rule.

And a seagulling rule.

Can't see FFA implementing rules that will harm Melbourne teams.

Question for Chris:

If a player is offside which causes a defender to make a desperate lunge at the ball to clear but the clearance isn't great so ball drops to an onside player who scores, has the original off-side player interferred with play?

I'd say yes as the defender only played the ball to ensure it didn't get to off-side player but technically it sounds like you're saying it wouldn't be called?

There are some missing criteria that is needed to answer your question there sir.

1: How far from the defender is the attacker? In my opinion, and this will differ from others, I think once an attacker is within 3-4m of the defender, I think you can reasonable assume he interferes with an opponent but there is not real laid out guide or measure to that. It is kinda on a case by case situation but within 3-4m would be in the zone for me.

2: Is the attackers movements to the defender and affect him playing the ball? He basically has to make a challenge on the ball/opponent.

• The attacker clearly attempts to play a ball which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent

• The attacker makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

A defenders reaction to an attackers presence whom is in an offside position does not fit the criteria of interfering with an opponent because being in an offside position alone is not an offence and the player has to interfere with play (touch the ball) interfere with an opponent (2 criteria above) or gain an advantage from being in that position.

Yeah ok. Interesting further criteria.
In my mind he's just making a run. Maybe only a couple of metres from defender. But no doubt will get the ball if the defender misses (but he doesn't play 'at it' because he doesn't need to - just wants defender to miss it).

It niggles me because the defender might not bother playing at it if the attacker isn't there. But if he does so and it's shanked - it seems to be play on.

For me again it should be common sense rules which is why I was interested in the technical decision. Cheers again.

We have arranged, with the kind permission of Perth Glory FC, to have Andy Keogh on the pod this week.

Questions please - and please be reasonable - there are some things we cannot ask about...

How's his sister doing after her bonus payments last year?