[Albion] Should Murphy's "goal" have stood?

[1066familyman]

From my position in the ground it's impossible for me to say whether he was off or onside. Trial by video replay or stills after the event are another thing. Officials only have a split second in which to make their decision.

I'm no supporter of video technology in football, the game doesn't lend itself to such things like cricket and tennis do. Where do you even begin with using video technology for offside decisions? I'm a great believer in the old swings and roundabouts school of thought.

One interesting point though about weak officiating last night I did notice. Zamora was been held and blatantly shirt tugged by an Ipswich defender right in front of the lino. Lino gave nothing and Zamora had a moan at him. Minutes later a lesser case of pulling by the same defender on Zamora took place and the linesman couldn't put his flag up quick enough! Very weak to be so easily influenced like that.

 

[Everest]

Unless the ref deemed that the last player to play the ball was adefender which may not be apparent to the lino.. In this case he may have said the keeper didnt touch it in which case it would be a case of the attacker gaining an unfair advantage as per rule 11 (i)

FFS, give up.

Murphy was not in an offside position, no matter who touched or didn't touch the ball.

I suppose you think that the Liverpool "onside/offside" on Saturday was actually onside because the pass came from the Liverpool half

 

[drew]

Just watched it on sky he was most definitely offside no question. When he put the ball in the net he was goalside of the keeper so just the one defender out wide between him and the goal.

You purport to be some kind of football expert/scout etc but you seem to have no knowledge of the offside rule. It is irrelevant where he was when he put the ball in the net, it is relevant where he was when the ball left Stevens foot.

As for the goal, my initial thought was it was offside and even when I first saw the highlights but the freeze frame shows that it isn't clear and, more likely, he is onside.

 

[BensGrandad]

The offside rule has changed many times over the years and may I add not to benefit supporters. It is now so confusing, as this debate shows, and IMHO they would do better to revert to the original rule which said there had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. As Brian Clough used to say if a player has no influence on the game he shouldnt be on the pitch.

 

[Phat Baz 68]

Apparently the referee has apologised today saying, his linesman got it wrong

 

[essbee]

The offside rule has changed many times over the years and may I add not to benefit supporters. It is now so confusing, as this debate shows, and IMHO they would do better to revert to the original rule which said there had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. As Brian Clough used to say if a player has no influence on the game he shouldnt be on the pitch.

It's not really confusing for me. But it is apparently for some dumb dic* head of a lino.

 

[Machiavelli]

I sit in line in the West Upper. I haven't seen any replay, but there was a lot of time between Stephens' flick and Murphy's finish. I was of the view at the time that Murphy wasn't offside at the point that Stephens touched the ball, and will remain of that view until convinced otherwise.

 

[Machiavelli]

He was in an offside position when the shot was taken had the ball not hit the bar and gone in no problem but as soon as he played it he was offside.

BG, you've been around long enough to know about holes and digging, haven't you? The advice is to stop.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

The offside rule has changed many times over the years and may I add not to benefit supporters. It is now so confusing, as this debate shows, and IMHO they would do better to revert to the original rule which said there had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. As Brian Clough used to say if a player has no influence on the game he shouldnt be on the pitch.

There are elements of confusion in the current rules, but none of those are at all relevant in THIS particular case. There is nothing confusing whatsoever about this instance. All that matters is whether or not Murphy was offside (closer to the goal line) than the left back, at the moment Stephens flicked the ball forwards. Nothing else is at all relevant.

In the defence of the Lino though, this was a much tighter decision than a still image suggests, or than many are making out today.

 

[Stat Brother]

Has the recent LOVE in for BG ended

Thinking of starting a new thread

BG's desire to get stuck into Martin Ling as soon as possible, on the manager longevity thread, tells you all you need to know.

Quite how the 'love-in' thread had so many admirers beggers belief.

 

[drew]

The offside rule has changed many times over the years and may I add not to benefit supporters. It is now so confusing, as this debate shows, and IMHO they would do better to revert to the original rule which said there had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. As Brian Clough used to say if a player has no influence on the game he shouldnt be on the pitch.

On the contrary, the rules have been made to benefit attackers and, ergo, those that watch the game.

 

[Mutts Nuts]

If only there were some sort of handy online video. Oh wait....

http://www.skysports.com/football/brighton-vs-ipswich/339809

Not only was he onside, the left back holds up the hand of apology to his team mates.

#TheGrandadParodyAcoountContinues

Clearly on side he moves in after the ball is passed, Dunk however seems to have the attention span of an epileptic goldfish on crack, another school boy error which cost us the game and points

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The offside rule has changed many times over the years and may I add not to benefit supporters. It is now so confusing, as this debate shows, and IMHO they would do better to revert to the original rule which said there had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. As Brian Clough used to say if a player has no influence on the game he shouldnt be on the pitch.

Utter rubbish.


There had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. Incorrect. It's two or more between the attacker and the goal LINE. This still is the basic requirement.

There was when the pass was made and when the first shot taken so therefore it should have been given. No other reason than that. All the other stuff you've written is showing again your lack of knowledge.

The only difference now is if, IF, a player is considered in an off side position he maybe deemed not to be interfering, completely irrelevant in this situation as no such player was in an off side position.

Ben would be embarrassed.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Obviously onside

 

[Sheebo]

FFS, give up.

Murphy was not in an offside position, no matter who touched or didn't touch the ball.

I suppose you think that the Liverpool "onside/offside" on Saturday was actually onside because the pass came from the Liverpool half

No it was offside because when Benteke took the shot he was offisde - I saw it and am 100% sure when Benteke shot he was offside - isnt that correct parody account BG.?

 

[Guinness Boy]

The offside rule has changed many times over the years and may I add not to benefit supporters. It is now so confusing, as this debate shows, and IMHO they would do better to revert to the original rule which said there had to be 2 defenders between the attacker and the goal when the player strikes it. As Brian Clough used to say if a player has no influence on the game he shouldnt be on the pitch.

You and nine others are the only people who are confused Grandad. At the time of typing 106 people have got it right.

 

[HAILSHAM SEAGULL]

You and nine others are the only people who are confused Grandad. At the time of typing 106 people have got it right.

Did you not know that Ben has 8 brothers

 

[BensGrandad]

BG's desire to get stuck into Martin Ling as soon as possible, on the manager longevity thread, tells you all you need to know.

Quite how the 'love-in' thread had so many admirers beggers belief.

Have you ever considered learning to read? As I pointed out it was nothing whatsoever against Martin LING the citicism by saying it was a bad appointment was against the board of Swindon Town FC appointing him with his history to a position that naturally brought about stress. They should have given him a less stressful job as a No 2 or DOF.

 

[SIMMO SAYS]

Have you ever considered learning to read? As I pointed out it was nothing whatsoever against Martin LING the citicism by saying it was a bad appointment was against the board of Swindon Town FC appointing him with his history to a position that naturally brought about stress. They should have given him a less stressful job as a No 2 or DOF.

 

[BensGrandad]

As it happens in the car on the way home last night both Ben and his Dad thought the lino had got it right but then Ben said people were querying it on the internet.

Perhaps they will have reconsidered by. now but I am not convinced that it should have stood but I must admit to being disappointed when it happened. We will beat Wolves and start all over again. We got 1 point more than I expected out of our last 3 games and hopefully that is our bad spell over.