Wellington Phoenix Men

v Fury Friday 7:30pm RoF

561 replies · 4,431 views
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
Point (b) is true...


It's clear to me not many people bothered to watch the replay to see where the Fury defenders are standing.

You mean further away from goal than greenacre?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
how was Greenacre "gaining advantage" by walking towards halfway while the ball was at the sideline ?

and the ball from the cross wasn't even near Greenacre, except when the defender headed it to him.

Not offside.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Do you even read other people's posts?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
Steve-O wrote:
Point (b) is true...


It's clear to me not many people bothered to watch the replay to see where the Fury defenders are standing.
 
I know where they are standing - about 1-2 yards in front of Greenacre!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
I'm tempted to ban anyone who raises this issue again.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
FFS. Can't believe that there's this many people on a football site who can't grasp a simple offside rule.

From an officiating point of view, Greenacre has gained advantage from being in an offside position. He is offside when Daniel plays the ball, and the touch from Talay is irrelevant because it had failed to establish effective possession for the defending team. From an officiating point of view, during an attacking move any touch (attempting to block a shot, or sliding to intercept a pass, or attempting to clear the ball in this case) by the defending team that does not result in effective possession of the defending team is seen as a deflection/rebound in terms of applying the offside law.

It is clear that Talay's touch did not establish possession for Fury (he had so little control over it tha ball went nowhere near where he'd intended it!), therefore Greenacre was rightly flagged for offside. Simple, clearly obvious from the YF zone watching it live, and so uncontroversial that I'm tempted to ban anyone who raises this issue again.


Furthermore to all those that claim Greenie wasn't in an advantageous position: why at free kicks do you think he stands clearly offside and then makes the effort to rush back onside just before the ball is delivered?: because he knows that anything else and he would be in an advantageous position if there was a deflection from a defender (and probably a heap of other reasons too)HarryHotspur2010-09-25 15:45:58
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:

This was not a pass to the keeper, it was a mistimed header - he was looking to play the ball away from the box.


I can't see how you get that personal interpretation of that action, when the player was never facing away from goal coming in contact with the ball.

Ok, enough on the topic.Ard Righ2010-09-25 15:57:15
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
1. Talay clearly - and I mean clearly - is looking to head the ball away from the penalty area, this is obvious to anyone who's played or officiated in a football match from his original body position. It is only after the wind changes the direction of the ball (with the ball dropping shorter than Talay originally anticipated) that he has to change his position in order to make contact with the ball, over which he clearly has no control, which is why the ball ends up where it did.

2. Possession, in general terms = effective control of the ballel grapadura2010-09-25 15:58:33
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
well at what point does he become onside ????

if he is in an "advantage" position and runs back behind the defenders does he have to be there 3 seconds or what ??
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
1. Talay clearly


Was nowhere near the ball. Number 6 has his back to the camera in the replay.

Personal opinions, we won't agree on the actions of the defender.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
el grapadura wrote:
1. Talay clearly



Personal opinions, we won't agree on the actions of the defender.


There's nothing to disagree over - it's obvious what happens. If you can't accept that, fair enough.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
whooooooo wrote:
well at what point does he become onside ????


When he's in line with the second last defender, or behind the ball.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
whooooooo wrote:
well at what point does he become onside ????

if he is in an "advantage" position and runs back behind the defenders does he have to be there 3 seconds or what ??

Once he is offside, he is offside.  You can't un-offside yourself.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
whooooooo wrote:
well at what point does he become onside ????

if he is in an "advantage" position and runs back behind the defenders does he have to be there 3 seconds or what ??
 
If the ball had gone wide, Greenacre got himself back onside, the ball got crossed in, and he scored, THEN it would've been a goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
whooooooo wrote:
well at what point does he become onside ????

if he is in an "advantage" position and runs back behind the defenders does he have to be there 3 seconds or what ??

Once he is offside, he is offside.  You can't un-offside yourself.


so you have to wait till the next game ???
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I suggest you and Ard create a study group so you can get together and learn the laws of the game. 2ndBest2010-09-25 16:58:29
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
na, Durante is with me on this one. NOT OFFSIDE. BAM ! 
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:

whooooooo wrote:
well at what point does he become onside ????if he is in an "advantage" position and runs back behind the defenders does he have to be there 3 seconds or what ??
Once he is offside, he is offside.� You can't un-offside yourself.


really, not even by shooting yourself in the head

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
2ndBest wrote:
Do you even read other people's posts?


it seems that he mentally blocks them
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
whooooooo wrote:
na, Durante is with me on this one. NOT OFFSIDE. BAM ! 

Glad he is a footballer not a professional referee.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
I'm sorry, I was going to stay out of this debate but I just can't stop myself.

All this discussion about rules ignores the most important rules of all - the karmic laws of the universe.

And the karmic laws of the universe quite clearly state that Ufuk Talay is a c**t.

So, when Ufuk Talay headed that ball down to Chris Greenacre he may well have been in an offside position but the goal still should have been allowed to stand because...

Ufuk Talay is a c**t.

Furthermore, when Vince Lia goes into a studs up challenge on Ufuk Talay there is not way he should have received a yellow card simply because...

Ufuk Talay is a c**t.

Anybody can quote the laws of the game as they literally written, but only a true football fan is able to interpret and apply those within the karmic laws of the universe and achieve true understanding of the game.

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
whooooooo wrote:
na, Durante is with me on this one. NOT OFFSIDE. BAM ! 
 
The players demonstrated they have no idea what the offside rule is last night so I wouldn't trust them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qe_B5CzbTJo - Caceres winning penalty v Perth - footage from the Fever Zone

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
FFS. Can't believe that there's this many people on a football site who can't grasp a simple offside rule.

From an officiating point of view, Greenacre has gained advantage from being in an offside position. He is offside when Daniel plays the ball, and the touch from Talay is irrelevant because it had failed to establish effective possession for the defending team. From an officiating point of view, during an attacking move any touch (attempting to block a shot, or sliding to intercept a pass, or attempting to clear the ball in this case) by the defending team that does not result in effective possession of the defending team is seen as a deflection/rebound in terms of applying the offside law.

It is clear that Talay's touch did not establish possession for Fury (he had so little control over it that the ball went nowhere near where he'd intended it!), therefore Greenacre was rightly flagged for offside. Simple, clearly obvious from the YF zone watching it live, and so uncontroversial that I'm tempted to ban anyone who raises this issue again.


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
TV3 said Peter O'Leary apologised to the team at half-time for not allowing Greenacre's second goal.

Professional ref thought it was the wrong call.

Adds many more LOLS to this thread
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Steve-O wrote:
whooooooo wrote:
na, Durante is with me on this one. NOT OFFSIDE. BAM ! 
 
The players demonstrated they have no idea what the offside rule is last night so I wouldn't trust them...
THE PLAYERS  were right....bugger me....shows you the standard of the lino and the ref...having know idea at this level....i wouldn't trust them
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
TV3 said Peter O'Leary apologised to the team at half-time for not allowing Greenacre's second goal.

Professional ref thought it was the wrong call.

Adds many more LOLS to this thread


Would like to see the actual quote from O'Leary if that is the case. The law was correctly applied by the AR, and if O'Leary thought it wasn't, why didn't he overrule him in the first place? He has the power to do so, and was in a position to clearly see what had happened.

As for Durante's comments, like someone said, the players have shown shockingly poor understanding of the laws of the game before...
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
saw the TV3 story also.

I remember having intense discussions about this when NZ played Italy and I thought that I finally had got the gist of it. I agree with the majority on here that he was offside for all the reasons stated.

What I think now is that O'Leary must have thought it was either a deliberate head back or that he had posession for that brief moment and that it was not a rebound.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Or maybe O'Leary was just politic and trying to make it easier for himself to officiate in the second half - it's not unusual for referees to discuss some of their decisions with the teams (though not usually at the half-time break).Like I said, without the actual quote of what O'Leary said, the TV3 reporter's word doesn't really mean that much.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
TV3 said Peter O'Leary apologised to the team at half-time for not allowing Greenacre's second goal.

Professional ref thought it was the wrong call.

Adds many more LOLS to this thread


If it was at half time he quite possibly hadn't yet seen the replay.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Would like to see the actual quote from O'Leary if that is the case.


What O'Leary said to the Phoenix was:

"Sorry about that. Greenacre was definitely offside, but I didn't realise it had come off that c**t Ufuk Talay. If I had I would have let the goal stand".

Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
El Grap and and I have had this debate before! While I agree the critical question is whether "possession" has been effected, I disagree that it is so clearcut that it had not changed hands.
 
Who was in possession when Talay headed the ball, if he wasn't? NQ were more in possession than us at that point anyway.
 
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Well, there have to be parameters for officials to use in situations like this - if it's not clear that the defending team is in possession, then the underlying assumption is that the touch by the defending team is nothing more than a deflection or a rebound. Talay clearly had no effective control of the ball (like I said, it went nowhere near where he'd initially intended it to go), and if you don't have control, how can you have effective possession? This situation is really no different than a defender sliding to intercept a pass and only succeeding in diverting it to a forward, or a keeper parrying a shot to a forward in an offside position. Don't think anyone would argue there that the defending team had clear possession of the ball in that case, and I can't see how you can make that case in this situation also.

If Talay had actually controlled the ball and then try to pass it back, or if his header had gone to another Fury player who controlled the ball and passed it back and that was intercepted, then there would be no offside. But this is not what happened.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Why do people keep saying Talay headed the ball?
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
terminator_x wrote:

el grapadura wrote:
Would like to see the actual quote from O'Leary if that is the case.
What O'Leary said to the Phoenix was:"Sorry about that. Greenacre was definitely offside, but I didn't realise it had come off that c**t Ufuk Talay. If I had I would have let the goal stand".


Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
Why do people keep saying Talay headed the ball?


because, as Termy says, he's a specific anatomical region
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
Ard Righ wrote:
Why do people keep saying Talay headed the ball?


Because we're muppets - prob my fault, I initially thought it was him before I saw the replay of the game, and now everyone seems to have caught onto it...
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
unless you sired the lot of us i'm not sure you should hold yourself personally responsible for our collective muppetry
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
el grapadura wrote:
Well, there have to be parameters for officials to use in situations like this - if it's not clear that the defending team is in possession, then the underlying assumption is that the touch by the defending team is nothing more than a deflection or a rebound. Talay clearly had no effective control of the ball (like I said, it went nowhere near where he'd initially intended it to go), and if you don't have control, how can you have effective possession? This situation is really no different than a defender sliding to intercept a pass and only succeeding in diverting it to a forward, or a keeper parrying a shot to a forward in an offside position. Don't think anyone would argue there that the defending team had clear possession of the ball in that case, and I can't see how you can make that case in this situation also.

If Talay had actually controlled the ball and then try to pass it back, or if his header had gone to another Fury player who controlled the ball and passed it back and that was intercepted, then there would be no offside. But this is not what happened.
 
I still think its very subjective.
Permalink Permalink
over 15 years ago · edited over 13 years ago
For goodness sakes, we won, we got three points, we still undefeated at the ROF, we still hate O'Leary and we still hate Talay. Talking about the past is not going to change that.

Why can't we just get along . . . think about the children!!!
Permalink Permalink