Return to front page

Newest article: Fund our Future plea by johnnybaker26/4 16:10Fri Apr 26 16:10:49 2024view thread

Oldest article: "Hither & Thither"? by alan ainsworth24/11/2013 12:59Sun Nov 24 12:59:08 2013view thread


Reply to "Disallowed goal"

You must log in or register before you can post an article

return to the front page

Disallowed goal

By David B (legacy user)31/8/2014 22:42Sun Aug 31 22:42:45 2014In response to Re: Bogey team wins again

Views: 3860

The ball was headed goalwards by Lee O'Leary, who ran from behind his defender so, in my opinion could not be offside in any circumstance.

Kezie and, I think, Leon Smith ran in hoping for a rebound, deflection or half-save by the goalkeeper. I was not sure whether goalkeeper fumbled the ball forward into Kezie or straight against the post before it rebounded off his body and into the net.

People around me think the ball hit Kezie, in which case he was offside and, as he touched the ball (or it touched him - either way, it is irrelevant), he was in an active offside position. If, however, the ball had gone against only the goalkeeper and goalpost then Kezie and Leon should have been considered passive.

My instinct is that the ball made contact with Kezie, so the assistant referee almost certainly got the decision correct.

By the way, this was actually very different to Ollie Sprague's goal on Monday. Any players in an offside position on Monday were passive because they did not affect the ball's path after Ollie struck it and their position did not change Charlie Horlock's failure to make a save - the deflection did that more than adequately. In Monday's case, the referee, who had a very different angle, realised that the offside players were passive and discussed the situation with his assistant. Once it became clear that the deflection was off a defender and not one of the offside players, the referee correctly overruled his assistant.