Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Wolves Goal

Anyone seen Steve Bennett's decision.

Basically - ebanks blake falls off the pitch in momentum ball goes back towards him -he runs on back on the pitch to head the ball in.

Didn't something liek this happen with Italy at the EUROS.

Bennett allowed the goal by the way saying he wasn't offside as he was off the pitch.

Discuss???

Comments

  • Seems totally wrong Ledge that the goal was allowed to stand. Would like to hear an answer from one of our weekend refs on here!

    The linesman definately got it wrong with Big Chris's goal though, he was on side!
  • haven't seen it, but surely you have to get permission from the refree to rejoin the field of play?
  • Wouldn't need permission to come back on if he was bundled off/ran over the line, etc. Still an active player as he wasn't asked to leave the field. Bit of a dodgy area of the law, but from what I know, surely a goal?
  • So whats stopping a striker just running off of the pitch at one end then coming back on after the ball has been played forward and knocking the ball in the net?
  • yeah big chris's goal should have stood - great finish as well.
  • edited October 2008
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/7445476.stm

    this was it.

    Holland scored against Italy , RVN who was miles offside, but the goal was given because the Italian player was laying off the pitch and the lino /ref said he was in play - if that is the case Steve Bennett got it wrong surely.
  • Regardless of the Italian decision (Panucci was spark out off the field), Ebanks Blake had to be offside. He runs back from the touchline to meet the cross and knock it home, so it doesn't matter if he was offside while he was off the pitch, from the moment he stepped back on the pitch to the point he met the ball, he had to be off. Surely this is obvious.
  • yeah exactly the point I am making but backing it up with facts my old china.

    Shocking decision
  • I think the law states that you are "on the touch line, where you crossed it". Therefore the injured Italian defender was playing RVN onside, although surely against the spirit of the game given that it was a "real" injury.

    Ebanks-Blake should therefore have been given offside, unless he was level with 2 defenders that were also on the goal line, which he wasn't.
  • [cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]So whats stopping a striker just running off of the pitch at one end then coming back on after the ball has been played forward and knocking the ball in the net?

    I don't think your allowed to intentionally leave the field of play. Thats why you see players stay on the pitch when they get water, etc.
  • Sponsored links:


  • [cite]Posted By: Ledge[/cite]

    Holland scored against Italy

    I thought he scored against Reading .....?



    Seriously, the whole point of the offside law is to prevent players seeking unfair advantage.
    Okay, a player is only deemed offside at the moment the ball is played
    .
    But how the referee could consider a player rejoining the game from a position outside of the goaline (and in the specific circumstances) as not seeking an unfair advantage, is beyond me.

    How the referee has decided that a player coming from such a position and putting the ball in the net has not interfered with play, is beyond me.
  • Quick question for ledge

    Got a free kick yesterday inside our penalty box, took a quick free quick to me the otherside of the penalty area both players inside the box and got called back because the same rules apply as if it was was a goal kick.

    Is that right?
  • It is indeed. Although I just thought the ball wasn't in play until it was in the area. So you could waste bucket loads of time in theory, hehe.

    You can't score an own goal directly from a free kick either apparently. Not sure how you could mind.
  • [cite]Posted By: cafcpolo[/cite]
    [cite]Posted By: WSS[/cite]So whats stopping a striker just running off of the pitch at one end then coming back on after the ball has been played forward and knocking the ball in the net?

    I don't think your allowed to intentionally leave the field of play. Thats why you see players stay on the pitch when they get water, etc.

    So if you're momentum carries you off or you're tackled, you have to ask permission as you're in midair?
  • [cite]Posted By: CAFCBourne[/cite]Quick question for ledge

    Got a free kick yesterday inside our penalty box, took a quick free quick to me the otherside of the penalty area both players inside the box and got called back because the same rules apply as if it was was a goal kick.

    Is that right?

    It's right, but a bit like the old steps rule for keepers, is almost never enforced. You got a ref that knows the rules there. Give him a gold *

    Free Kick Inside the Penalty Area
    Direct or indirect free kick to the defending team:
    • all opponents must be at least 9.15 m (10 yds) from the ball
    • all opponents must remain outside the penalty area until the ball
    is in play
    • the ball is in play when it is kicked directly out of the penalty
    area
    • a free kick awarded in the goal area may be taken from any point
    inside that area

    I actually didn't know the second or fourth one.
  • When was the last time anybody saw an indirect freekick for obstruction? I had to check with a ref friend (spankie on here) to make sure the rule hadn't been removed as I see so many prem pens for obstruction. Of course the ref will say it was a body check, but that's tosh.

    Also, the rules clearly state that a defender has no obligation to move out of a forwards way, he just can't move to obstruct him, yet time after time I see attackers knock the ball past a player and deliberately run into them, and they always get a direct free kick (so a doubly wrong decision)

    And the FA wonders why there's no respect
  • Scenario for Mr Steve Bennet... Wolves are defending and Ebanks-Blake runs the length of the field to stand off the pitch next to Coventry's goal. Defenders have pushed up to Half Way Line then Wolves clear it out Ebanks-Blake sprints from behind defence but off the field to collect ball on edge of area and slot it home...Is he offside?
  • Assuming Ebay-Blanks sprints on the field AFTER the ball is played, then according to Mr Bennett perhaps, no.


    I would hope Mr Bennet does the decent thing, however ...... halts play and books Ebay-Blanks for unsporting behaviour.
  • edited October 2008
    According to the refs explanation the rules state that if a player goes off the pitch unintentionally (as ebanks blake did) he doesn't need permission to come back on the pitch. When the shot was struck he was off the pitch and therefore cannot be given offside. The keeper parrys the shot so when ebanks-blake gets back on the pitch he isn't coming back on to a ball being played forward so again can't be offside and is entitled to go for the ball.

    The ref n linesman got the decision right by the book, It's the law that's an ass...........as usual.

    RedArmy....in your scenario Ebanks-blake goes off the pitch intentionally and therefore he's not allowed back on without the refs say so, and a player isn't allowed to be waved back on if he can then immediately interfere with play.
  • I asked this yesterday, and only two people replied...



    I feel all unwanted. ;-)
  • Sponsored links:


  • Indirect free kicks are for offisde, goalkeeper handball from a backpass or throw, 6 seconds, picks it up twice etc and also dangerous play (i.e. high feet) and impedes the progress of a player (i.e. obstruction and prevents the keeper from releasing the ball) going off the pitch and everything else is a grey area and the powers that be are making it up as they go along really. A player can't be offside if he's off the field of play but then he's gaining an almightly advantage if he's beyond the last defender and heads it in. It's very harsh on Coventry. I actually know the assistant. He's actually a nice bloke, does a lot for officials in Kent and I went out with him last season at a Dartford game.
  • but Spankie my point was if , in the Italy v holland game, the defender laying prone on the floor behind the touch line was deemed to be "active" and the ref etc were backed up by fifa, uefa etc, then surely this is no different.
  • You are correct Ledge. It needs clarifying. A forward cannot be deemed inactive and a defender active. I know in tight offsides we're encouraged to give the benefit of doubt to the attacker but this is nothing short of giving the attacker an unprecidented advantage and it's unfair on defenders.
  • Put it another way if the same Goal Wolves scored at the weekend happened on a Sunday morning & the ref 'allowed' the goal he would be running for his life being chased by half the wronged opposition. If this goal is actually legal under the laws of the game then the law is an ass. It's offside plain & simple.
  • It's also seeking to gain unfair advantage = unsporting behaviour.
  • Okay, I get the hint...
  • [cite]Posted By: Ledge[/cite]but Spankie my point was if , in the Italy v holland game, the defender laying prone on the floor behind the touch line was deemed to be "active" and the ref etc were backed up by fifa, uefa etc, then surely this is no different.

    Spot on, the powers that be went to great lengths to explain the law and to confirm that the decision was correct, it's getting to the stage where there's hardly a person in the Country that fully understands / knows the current laws.

    Why oh why can't we go back to the old off-side law and stop making the game more complicated than it needs to be?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!