The Official Euro 2020 thread....

[unident]

monty999 said:

Not a fan of VAR, but if it's in use however can Lukaku not be offside ??? Just because the defender tries to clear it he is somehow deemed to be onside even though he was way off when the ball was played through to him initially.... sometimes these rules make no sense to me !

There was a similar incident with Liverpool Spurs a few years ago. It’s the right decision.

[Eric Mc]

It’s been a long standing rule that you cannot be offside if the ball was last played by a defender.

[Driver101]

Just switched to the Belgium game.

Martens meant to boot the guy in the balls.

[TCEvo]

Game wrapped up in first half.

[epom]

Why didn’t the keeper catch it ? FFS

[TwigtheWonderkid]

unident said:

monty999 said:

Not a fan of VAR, but if it's in use however can Lukaku not be offside ??? Just because the defender tries to clear it he is somehow deemed to be onside even though he was way off when the ball was played through to him initially.... sometimes these rules make no sense to me !

There was a similar incident with Liverpool Spurs a few years ago. It’s the right decision.

Exactly. They key thing is the defender tries to clear it. If it just deflected off the defender, it would have been offside. But the defender played the ball, fked it up, and it fell to Lukaku. That's a good goal, and has been since I've been watching football for the last 52 years.

[Driver101]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

unident said:

monty999 said:

Not a fan of VAR, but if it's in use however can Lukaku not be offside ??? Just because the defender tries to clear it he is somehow deemed to be onside even though he was way off when the ball was played through to him initially.... sometimes these rules make no sense to me !

There was a similar incident with Liverpool Spurs a few years ago. It’s the right decision.

Exactly. They key thing is the defender tries to clear it. If it just deflected off the defender, it would have been offside. But the defender played the ball, fked it up, and it fell to Lukaku. That's a good goal, and has been since I've been watching football for the last 52 years.

Just seen it.

If the defender knows Lukaku is offside he's not pressurised into playing the ball. He's doesn't and he's forced to try and clear the ball.

Lukaku is interfering with the game. That should be ruled out in my opinion.

[Eric Mc]

The play off the defender negated the fact that Lokaku was standing in an off side position.That is what the rules say. Whether Lukaku was or wasn’t interfering with play makes no difference in that situation.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Driver101 said:

Lukaku is interfering with the game. That should be ruled out in my opinion.

Even though the laws of the game are quite clear that it shouldn't be ruled out. The ref's job and var's job is to enforce the laws of the game, not make up new ones on the spot because he doesn't like the actual laws.

[monty999]

Driver101 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

unident said:

monty999 said:

Not a fan of VAR, but if it's in use however can Lukaku not be offside ??? Just because the defender tries to clear it he is somehow deemed to be onside even though he was way off when the ball was played through to him initially.... sometimes these rules make no sense to me !

There was a similar incident with Liverpool Spurs a few years ago. It’s the right decision.

Exactly. They key thing is the defender tries to clear it. If it just deflected off the defender, it would have been offside. But the defender played the ball, fked it up, and it fell to Lukaku. That's a good goal, and has been since I've been watching football for the last 52 years.

Just seen it.

If the defender knows Lukaku is offside he's not pressurised into playing the ball. He's doesn't and he's forced to try and clear the ball.

Lukaku is interfering with the game. That should be ruled out in my opinion.

Thats how I see it too, if a player stands in an offside position and obscures the keepers view he is given off side even if he doesn't touch the ball as he is interfering with the play, just as Lukaku was doing forcing the defender to try to stop the ball getting to him. I get what the rules say but as I stated, sometimes they make no sense to me.

[Driver101]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driver101 said:

Lukaku is interfering with the game. That should be ruled out in my opinion.

Even though the laws of the game are quite clear that it shouldn't be ruled out. The ref's job and var's job is to enforce the laws of the game, not make up new ones on the spot because he doesn't like the actual laws.

There was an argument after the Silva goal for Man City v Villa. The goal stood and it was justified at the time why it was ok by the rules. The Premier League have clarified that it wouldn't be allowed again.

I'm sure this incident will be another one that the laws can be twisted. The defender has to intentionally play the ball. He was pressurised into playing the ball and didn't play it as intended. It wasn't an intentional act.

My opinion is goals like this shouldn't stand. Lukaku has gained an adventure by being offside as he forced the defender to make a rash clearance that went wrong.

Edited by Driver101 on Saturday 12th June 21:59

[TCEvo]

Bel walked that, Rus total crap even w/ home advantage.

[monty999]

Driver101 said:

There was an argument after the Silva goal for Man City v Villa. The goal stood and it was justified at the time why it was ok by the rules. The Premier League have clarified that it wouldn't be allowed again.

I'm sure this incident will be another one that the laws can be twisted. The defender has to intentionally play the ball. He was pressurised into playing the ball and didn't play it as intended.

My opinion is goals like this shouldn't stand. Lukaku has gained an adventure by being offside as he forced the defender to make a rash clearance that went wrong.

It's a brave defender who makes a split second decision whether to step aside and hope the striker is off side.

Belgium have looked good by the way. Yes even though Russia were pants

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Driver101 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driver101 said:

Lukaku is interfering with the game. That should be ruled out in my opinion.

Even though the laws of the game are quite clear that it shouldn't be ruled out. The ref's job and var's job is to enforce the laws of the game, not make up new ones on the spot because he doesn't like the actual laws.

There was an argument after the Silva goal for Man City v Villa. The goal stood and it was justified at the time why it was ok by the rules. The Premier League have clarified that it wouldn't be allowed again.

I'm sure this incident will be another one that the laws can be twisted. The defender has to intentionally play the ball. He was pressurised into playing the ball and didn't play it as intended.

My opinion is goals like this shouldn't stand. Lukaku has gained an adventure by being offside as he forced the defender to make a rash clearance that went wrong.

Gaining an advantage by being offside isn't always against the laws. Players gain advantage from being offside all the time, maybe because it means one defender is tied up watching or tracking the offside player allowing an onside player to score.

Standing in an offside position, and pressurising a defender into playing a ball he otherwise might not play, is perfectly legal. Had the defender played the ball out to the edge of the area (because of Lukaku's presence) and another Belgian player smashed it in, no one would have no doubt that Lukaku wasn't interfering with play, yet the advantage he gained would have been the same.

[Driver101]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driver101 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Driver101 said:

Lukaku is interfering with the game. That should be ruled out in my opinion.

Even though the laws of the game are quite clear that it shouldn't be ruled out. The ref's job and var's job is to enforce the laws of the game, not make up new ones on the spot because he doesn't like the actual laws.

There was an argument after the Silva goal for Man City v Villa. The goal stood and it was justified at the time why it was ok by the rules. The Premier League have clarified that it wouldn't be allowed again.

I'm sure this incident will be another one that the laws can be twisted. The defender has to intentionally play the ball. He was pressurised into playing the ball and didn't play it as intended.

My opinion is goals like this shouldn't stand. Lukaku has gained an adventure by being offside as he forced the defender to make a rash clearance that went wrong.

Gaining an advantage by being offside isn't always against the laws. Players gain advantage from being offside all the time, maybe because it means one defender is tied up watching or tracking the offside player allowing an onside player to score.

Standing in an offside position, and pressurising a defender into playing a ball he otherwise might not play, is perfectly legal. Had the defender played the ball out to the edge of the area (because of Lukaku's presence) and another Belgian player smashed it in, no one would have no doubt that Lukaku wasn't interfering with play, yet the advantage he gained would have been the same.

But the player standing in the offside position wouldn't have gained an advantage.

Lukaku was offside and was the player that forced the defender to make a rash clearance. He benefitted when the defender didn't get the deliberate outcome he wanted.

[Eric Mc]

There are two specific incidences where a player who is physically standing in an offside position will be deemed NOT to be offside-

1. The ball came to the offside player having been played by a defender (as in the situation tonight).

2. The offside player receives the ball from a throw in.

Them’s the rules.

[Driver101]

Eric Mc said:

There are two specific incidences where a player who is physically standing in an offside position will be deemed NOT to be offside-

1. The ball came to the offside player having been played by a defender (as in the situation tonight).

2. The offside player receives the ball from a throw in.

Them’s the rules.

The defender has to deliberately play the ball.

He was panicked into playing the ball and the outcome wasn't what he intended.

Is that deliberate?

[wazztie16]

Driver101 said:

Eric Mc said:

There are two specific incidences where a player who is physically standing in an offside position will be deemed NOT to be offside-

1. The ball came to the offside player having been played by a defender (as in the situation tonight).

2. The offside player receives the ball from a throw in.

Them’s the rules.

The defender has to deliberately play the ball.

He was panicked into playing the ball and the outcome wasn't what he intended.

Is that deliberate?

Deliberately playing the ball is intentionally playing the ball, no matter how the play goes. If a player is facing his own goal and deflects a shot then it's not a deliberate play, as an example.

I haven't seen the game tonight nor any replays so can't properly comment on what's happened.

Also, there's more than 2 instances, from the original quote.

Goal kick and corner kick (though you wouldn't know it after watching last night's match) are more instances.

[unident]

Driver101 said:

Eric Mc said:

There are two specific incidences where a player who is physically standing in an offside position will be deemed NOT to be offside-

1. The ball came to the offside player having been played by a defender (as in the situation tonight).

2. The offside player receives the ball from a throw in.

Them’s the rules.

The defender has to deliberately play the ball.

He was panicked into playing the ball and the outcome wasn't what he intended.

Is that deliberate?

Yes

[GloverMart]

Driver101 said:

Eric Mc said:

There are two specific incidences where a player who is physically standing in an offside position will be deemed NOT to be offside-

1. The ball came to the offside player having been played by a defender (as in the situation tonight).

2. The offside player receives the ball from a throw in.

Them’s the rules.

The defender has to deliberately play the ball.

He was panicked into playing the ball and the outcome wasn't what he intended.

Is that deliberate?

Yes, it is deliberate. The fact he wanted to play it from point A to point B but actually played it to Point C is completely irrelevant to the argument and to the Laws of the Game.