Mariners vs Smurfs (Sydney)

[finally retired]

It might help if someone from the FFA was able to publicly justify controversial refereeing decisions, so that the reasons for making them was clearer to viewers.

that would be dangerous for FFA......while it would make them look good when the controversial call was good.....what do they do when it's a bad call? if they only did it for "good" calls.....when there's no justification it's admitting the ref or linesman made a mistake....

 

[finally retired]

Thanks for the reply to Bikinigirl, you saved me looking it up again

I have to admit I only looked it up because I couldn't believe I was wrong :ashamed:

 

[style_cafe]

I have to admit that I only checked because their are too many wise people on here & egg is damn difficult to get off my face..

"I thought I wrong once but I was mistaken"

 

[yellowcake]

check out the Laws Of The Game and the "interactive offside rule" demo at http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html (Hopefully the A-League linesmen and women all have this in the favourites). I too thought as soon as he moved towards the ball he was offside, but after looking at the demo it seems that unless he actually touches the ball (in the Sydney game he didn't....I think it was Cazarine who was "offside" but Petratos ran through so Cazarine was never in "active play") or makes "distracting gestures" (running for the ball doesn't appear to count as a distracting gesture) then the play is not stopped for an offside infringement.......so I apologise to the linesman for the abuse I heaped on him during the match.

If that's the law, the law is an ass.

If that's the law, why isn't it exploited by having a player deliberately in an offside position, who will not play the ball but who runs a decoy line to distract the defence (perhaps like what would be penalised as a 'shepherd' in rugby league)?

I reckon if offside had been called (on Cazarine) leading up to the first Petratos goal, there actually wouldn't have been too much protest from the Sydney players or fans watching in real-time.


Well, I'm still OK with my tirade of abuse at the AR. Before halftime there were 2 more missed offsides (where the player in question received the ball) and a clear played-for corner given as a goalkick. Should've given his match payment back.

 

[Bex]

I'm with you yellowcake. There's no way that call was right. If it was right then they need to change the rule quickly before decoy runners become the norm.

 

[marinermick]

There was an exact situation in the second half at 2-2 when it was called offisde. The Sydney players were arguing furiously and rightly pointed to the first half goal. Under the laws of the game they should have had another one-on-one and have won the game. As mentioned above, such an idiodic rule.

At the end of the day, despite everything, Dutchy was to blame. He stopped, put his hand in the air and watched Petratos run by him (Wilko was on Cazarine). Silly mistake by our biggest pro in the team. He has been immense for us this season, but coupled with the second goal, it will be a game he would want to quickly forget.

 

[hasbeen]

Cazarine wasn't even running for the ball, he was running alongside and didn't go toward the ball at any stage ... so he's not offside.

 

[style_cafe]

There was an exact situation in the second half at 2-2 when it was called offisde. The Sydney players were arguing furiously and rightly pointed to the first half goal. Under the laws of the game they should have had another one-on-one and have won the game. As mentioned above, such an idiodic rule.

At the end of the day, despite everything, Dutchy was to blame. He stopped, put his hand in the air and watched Petratos run by him (Wilko was on Cazarine). Silly mistake by our biggest pro in the team. He has been immense for us this season, but coupled with the second goal, it will be a game he would want to quickly forget.

Very good observation Mick,Dutchy did indeed step forward to claim the off-side, but in all fairness I doubt whether he would have stopped the goal as he was a good 15-20m away & coming forward not going across towards Petratos.

 

[Wombat]

It`s very easy to single out the rookie to use as a scapegoat but I thought Sainbury did well overall & certainly wasn`t our worse performer in the first half.

Quite a few of our players were below par in the first half. I think we lose our balance without Rose &/or Bojic on the field.

They give us our width,thus creating more space when we get to the front third.With Rose out we lost this balance.

The second half was a much better performance.

I was disappointed when Sainbury was taken off but TBH Arnie`s tactics worked superbly for the first twenty minutes.
After the second goal Sydney picked up a bit defensively & although we dominated the third goal just eluded us.

Ryan...7 Couldn`t do much about the goals & had little else to do.His distribution is getting better each week
Sainsbury...6.5 was under pressure with Sydney targetting him but did well defensively & improved on the midweek game.
Wilko...7tradesmanlike effort.Not outstanding but did his job
Dutchy...6.5 I just hope he doesn`t have another game like this
Bojic...8Played his heart out & apart from a few defensive errors in the second half played great.
Wee-mac...7played more defensively in the first half but had a great attacking second half
Olly...8only needs to add shooting to his game to be a complete player
Griffo..7.5very strong defensively
Perez...7played sensational & owned the park for the first 20mins of the second half but other than that was ordinary.
Matty...7it`s hard not to love him.He`s an exiciting player who gets the crowd on it`s feet every time he touches the ball
Kwassie...5did someone forget to tell him he was only rested for one game?
McBreen...6I`m not a fan but at least he tried this week
Hutcho...7played well but don`t let him take quick free kicks
Musty...hard to score him with so little time on the field.

Overall I was impressed that we came came back into the game from 2-0 down. The lads showed great character & determination.A fine effort after a hard week on the road.

MOM...Olly 3
Bojic 2
Perez 1 if we could get him to play like he did
for those 20mins we`d be on top now

Footnote:I thought the refereeing was sadly well below
standard.Apart from the obvious McBreen
should have had a penalty in the dying minutes
when he hit the side net. The defenders boot
almost took his head off

You obviously spent the game looking at girls breasts again (fair enough!) or you have NEVER played in the back four before, because Sainsbury was appalling.
I'm not sure why he was so poor and i still think he may have a future (in a couple of seasons time)but I dont want to see him in the first team again this season.
Completely laughable that you ranked him above McBreen!

 

[style_cafe]

You obviously spent the game looking at girls breasts again (fair enough!) or you have NEVER played in the back four before, because Sainsbury was appalling.
I'm not sure why he was so poor and i still think he may have a future (in a couple of seasons time)but I dont want to see him in the first team again this season.
Completely laughable that you ranked him above McBreen!

I`m really disappointed!!
I thought the Perez evaluation would get more attention :angry:

lol...I did play in the back 4 a bit,enough to know that if your second defender isn`t working well with you it can make you look bad or you can do your job but still make the second defender look much better.

However, without the benefit of a replay & a couple of hours it`s probably useless to try to explain the finer points of defending on a forum like this.

I will say this though,I would rate a one legged,blind Sainsbury with leprosy over a fully fit (and rested..lol) McBreen.

Just my opinion for what it`s worth!!!

 

[Forum Phoenix]

(Taken from the same laws of the game vid)

Interfering with an opponent...
The International Football Association Board defines it as
- preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements,
- or by making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

It would seem to me that the offside run of Cazarine - his "movement" - very clearly distracted and deceived our central defenders, as they were watching Cazarine and his continued run and subsequently missed Petratos late run until it was too late.

There is no way if they were not watching Cazarine running offside that they would have failed to notice Petratos until they did.

AND If he was not so blatantly offside then they would have continued chasing and would have been in position to intercept petratos.

So by the laws of the game, clearly offside for mine.

But it was still a good defensive lesson for us.
Always play the whistle...

 

[yellowcake]

Always play the whistle...

This