Question for Monkey Hanger
- Thread starter VALAIRIAN
- Start date
Only asking you M.H. as I know that you have a Refereeing knowledge/background
I do not understand how an opposition free-kick can be taken in our half, when the offence is offside?!?!
Quite easy when you have an incompetent set of officials.
That alone should relegate the four yesterday to several leagues below the EFL.
Good luck sifting through all 228 pages of “laws” of football.
Rule 11 (4) on offsides does state that:
“If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it’s in the player’s own half of the field of play”.
But there doesn’t seem to be any explanation or example of how that latter case can actually occur.
Perhaps, in the instance yesterday, a Stanley player was a few yards into the opponent’s half and was judged to be offside. He didn’t receive or touch the ball, otherwise the free kick would have been in Cheltenham’s half. So, somehow, that Stanley player then ran five yards back into his own half and ‘fouled’ an opponent. In which case, isn’t that just a foul?
No wonder the refs are as they are trying to interpret such convoluted notions.
Rule 11 (4) on offsides does state that:
“If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it’s in the player’s own half of the field of play”.
But there doesn’t seem to be any explanation or example of how that latter case can actually occur.
Perhaps, in the instance yesterday, a Stanley player was a few yards into the opponent’s half and was judged to be offside. He didn’t receive or touch the ball, otherwise the free kick would have been in Cheltenham’s half. So, somehow, that Stanley player then ran five yards back into his own half and ‘fouled’ an opponent. In which case, isn’t that just a foul?
No wonder the refs are as they are trying to interpret such convoluted notions.
Such a stupid rule change made by stupid people! Why overcomplicate an already complex rule?
Accepting that the referee was correct he was still very poor. I think he gave one free kick late on for a foul on Bishop on the half way line when the lad was fouled virtually every time he challenged for the ball. How he actually keeps his shirt on his back is amazing! I think Colby should have his “shirt” spray painted on to his upper half and then opponents would not be able to try to rip it off him!
Last edited:
Such a stupid rule change made by stupid people! Why overcomplicate an already complex rule?
Accepting that the referee was correct he was still very poor. I think he gave one free kick late on for a foul on Bishop on the half way line when the lad was fouled virtually every time he challenged for the ball. How he actually keeps his shirt on his back is amazing! I think Colby should have his “shirt” spray painted on to his upper half and then opponents would not be able to try to rip it off him!
It is daft as you get no advantage from being offside if you come back to your own half, however that hasn't changed just where the free kick is taken from.
?..I think Colby should have his “shirt” spray painted on to his upper half and then opponents would not be able to try to rip it off him!
I’ve thought for some time that teams are missing a trick in not wearing top shirts (maybe not shorts, it might get embarrassing) made of paper!
In Stanley’s case, it would catch offenders “red-handed” every time they grab a handful of Colby’s shirt.
