Watched game again, j rod poor

[Roger]

Thought he had a bad game but Jesus didn't realise how poor he was. Coupled with end of last seasons performance he needs to be benched if gaston plays as he did when he came on and Lallana improves.

[Saint Charlie]

Cracking finish for a very marginally offside goal. Only player in front 4 with any pace and will stay in the team.

[Roger]

I don't think so. In terms of class and skill he's not close to others.

[gammon cheeks]

Dwight York " Southampton are always hard to beat at the Dell "

[Roger]

Dwight Yorke was absolutely terrible!

[Smirking_Saint]

What did you think of Lambert Roge ? Out of interest ?

[NickG]

First half hour thought he was much better than Lallana.

 

Good work rate, chasing down, challenging unlike AL, with pace.

 

Ramirez seems most dangerous

[mulletsaint]

Thought he had a bad game but Jesus didn't realise how poor he was. Coupled with end of last seasons performance he needs to be benched if gaston plays as he did when he came on and Lallana improves.

 

Don't think he was any poorer than Lambert overall or Lallana in the first half. Out of all the front 3/4, he is the only one that carries out Pochettino's game plan of pressing high up the pitch with any consistency. Lambert had more chances but that's because he plays further forward.

 

Pity his goal was marginally offside as it was a cracking finish and would have helped his confidence. Should have done better with his second half header.

[Roger]

I thought he worked really hard. Maybe tried a bit too hard. Didn't really come off for him. Shpuld have done better with second header. The worst thing was his free kicks today but watching him in the game again wasn't bad at all. 6/10 for him today.

[pingwing]

He needs someone holding a gun to his head to teach him how to place the ball into the net, other than the "offside goal" (sitting in block 3 on the line it was NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS offside) he was pathetically wasteful and needs a proper shouting at for that performance. Could have won it from 3 or 4 other chances and just decided to be gash, again.

 

I really hope the manager throws a boot, chair and everything in the changing room at him for just not delivering on his potential. It's like going down on a woman for 10 mins then falling asleep there, she's not happy you haven't gotten up and finished the job and you look a mug.

[Batman]

He needs someone holding a gun to his head to teach him how to place the ball into the net, other than the "offside goal" (sitting in block 3 on the line it was NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS offside) he was pathetically wasteful and needs a proper shouting at for that performance. Could have won it from 3 or 4 other chances and just decided to be gash, again.

 

I really hope the manager throws a boot, chair and everything in the changing room at him for just not delivering on his potential. It's like going down on a woman for 10 mins then falling asleep there, she's not happy you haven't gotten up and finished the job and you look a mug.

 

it was, though

[Turkish]

He needs someone holding a gun to his head to teach him how to place the ball into the net, other than the "offside goal" (sitting in block 3 on the line it was NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS offside) he was pathetically wasteful and needs a proper shouting at for that performance. Could have won it from 3 or 4 other chances and just decided to be gash, again.

 

I really hope the manager throws a boot, chair and everything in the changing room at him for just not delivering on his potential. It's like going down on a woman for 10 mins then falling asleep there, she's not happy you haven't gotten up and finished the job and you look a mug.

 

It was offside, it was one of those where it was so tight maybe the benefit should go with the attacker, but he was just ahead of play when the ball was played, it was very, very tight but he was just off.

[itchen_dan]

I'm one of Jay's biggest fans but feel he was quite ineffective today. Did lots of running and closing down but had 2/3 very good chances to score but just wasn't at all clinical. Pochettino likes him because of his pace and directness out wide but I feel Lallana had an absolute storming second half and was unlucky to be dragged off. Ramirez looked extremely good however when he came on.

 

A front four of:

 

Ramirez - Lambert - Lallana

 

Osvaldo

 

does look pretty good but there is no doubt that Jay can fit into any of those positions so he is also a great option to have off the bench.

[Batman]

had sunderland scored that jrod goal against us and it was allowed to stand, this place would be going mental that it was a disgrace and it was offside

 

 

it was offside

[pingwing]

it was, though

 

It was offside, it was one of those where it was so tight maybe the benefit should go with the attacker, but he was just ahead of play when the ball was played, it was very, very tight but he was just off.

 

Oh gutted!

 

I was going to wait for it to turn up on MOTD but if there is some sort of consensus I may have to temper my anger.

 

Or more likely shout at at him more...

[Turkish]

I want Rodriguez to do well, he's young, English and seems like a good guy. But the reality is he had a spell of about 5 games around March time last year where he was excellent and that really has been about it, there is a good player in there somewhere but at the moment he wouldn't be in my first XI once Ramirez and Osvaldo are up to speed.

[Batman]

agree richard

when he was playing really well, he would run with the ball at fullbacks/defenders with real pace and direction

[mulletsaint]

Oh gutted!

 

I was going to wait for it to turn up on MOTD but if there is some sort of consensus I may have to temper my anger.

 

Or more likely shout at at him more...

 

Yup, very close but undoubtedly offside given the replays on Sky.

[RonManager]

It's so infuriating. He's so close to being a **** hot striker. He had a short purple period last season and I really hope he makes it happen this season.

[shurlock]

Jrod offers us pace and directness that few others do -and for that reason he'll stay in the team. That's not necessarily a compliment to his current form -and it would be nice if he had more competition (Sinclair would have offered it).

FWIW, Lambert didn't have a great day: some of his passing was poor -alot of underhit and telegraphed stuff.

[pingwing]

Just seen it on MOTD, I don't think that is offside. His shoulder is but his feet are on, linesman cannot call that without being lazy/unattentive and HAS to give the benefit to the attacking player. For me a clear cut, legit goal chalked off for poor reffing yet again.

[Turkish]

Just seen it on MOTD, I don't think that is offside. His shoulder is but his feet are on, linesman cannot call that without being lazy/unattentive and HAS to give the benefit to the attacking player. For me a clear cut, legit goal chalked off for poor reffing yet again.

 

Well you're wrong. The rule is that any part of the body is nearer to the goal than the defender that is offside. It was very tight and maybe the benefit should have gone to the attacker but going by the rules he was marginally offside.

[Whitey Grandad]

Just seen it on MOTD, I don't think that is offside. His shoulder is but his feet are on, linesman cannot call that without being lazy/unattentive and HAS to give the benefit to the attacking player. For me a clear cut, legit goal chalked off for poor reffing yet again.

 

You've just explained why it was offside. If any part except the arms is nearer the goal then he's offside. Close, but not incorrect. J-Rod needs to time his runs better.

[pingwing]

Lads the rule is wrong then, how can someone be offside for leaning into a run, that's madness. Worse still it's not something the linesman was even in the right place to see, let alone call in the split second he made the call.

 

From where I was sat the linesman was 2 yards behind the play and called it on the off chance he was, just like Newcastle at home last year, he was in no place to call it again and it is criminal he was allowed to give it as offside when it basically isn't (ok technically any part of the body being ahead of the play of the back line counts as offside but that in its self is sickeningly stupid, it should be based on the feet and when you actually run not leaning). If it was given on the basis of tv replay and tech, yeah I wouldn't be angry about it, but in the situation the modern game is in there is no way in hell the linesman could have given that without guessing so it is a wrong decision because it isn't based on what he can see.

[Turkish]

You've just explained why it was offside. If any part except the arms is nearer the goal then he's offside. Close, but not incorrect. J-Rod needs to time his runs better.

 

To be fair you are talking about milliseconds, he was just unlucky with that, it was the right decision but another linesman would have given it and given him the doubt. It was the right decision but You're literally talking about fractions in that case, He moves Towards the ball half a second later hes on and its a goal. His header from osvaldos cross which went straight at the keeper was poor though.

[Turkish]

Lads the rule is wrong then, how can someone be offside for leaning into a run, that's madness. Worse still it's not something the linesman was even in the right place to see, let alone call in the split second he made the call.

 

From where I was sat the linesman was 2 yards behind the play and called it on the off chance he was, just like Newcastle at home last year, he was in no place to call it again and it is criminal he was allowed to give it as offside when it basically isn't (ok technically any part of the body being ahead of the play of the back line counts as offside but that in its self is sickeningly stupid, it should be based on the feet and when you actually run not leaning). If it was given on the basis of tv replay and tech, yeah I wouldn't be angry about it, but in the situation the modern game is in there is no way in hell the linesman could have given that without guessing so it is a wrong decision because it isn't based on what he can see.

 

Whatever you might think about the rules or the linesman it was the correct decision. I don't like it either but that doesn't mean it was the wrong call.

[Batman]

talking about strikers

 

andy carroll is due back 15th Sep

isnt that when we play west ham on sky?

 

no doubt it will be billed up as lambert v carroll with the general football watching public casting their judgement?

[SuperMikey]

Think he was unlucky to have the goal ruled out going by replays, a lot of other linesmen would have given that but seems that we got caught out that time. Good finish too.

 

Don't think he did too much else all afternoon really, poor touches and passes and put a few chances straight at the keeper. We should've had 4 or 5, Westwood had a blinder for them.

[Jonnyboy]

Why are Jamie and Richard trying to run down j rod?

[Smirking_Saint]

Good finish but by the rules he was off.

[Turkish]

Think he was unlucky to have the goal ruled out going by replays, a lot of other linesmen would have given that but seems that we got caught out that time. Good finish too.

 

Don't think he did too much else all afternoon really, poor touches and passes and put a few chances straight at the keeper. We should've had 4 or 5, Westwood had a blinder for them.

 

Quite, a lot of linesman would have given it and given him the benefit, but rules are rules and it was the right call. I'm sure we'll get one go our way soon. Rodriguez is definitely a confidence player and lacks that swagger a top striker needs, he has all the attributes, just lacks that arrogance that makes a decent player a good one.

[Turkish]

Why are Jamie and Richard trying to run down j rod?

 

Because we know the rules and know he was offside then we're trolling. If we'd said it was definitely a goal and the linesman and rules are wrong we'd be great posters

[Junior Mullet]

Well you're wrong. The rule is that any part of the body is nearer to the goal than the defender that is offside. It was very tight and maybe the benefit should have gone to the attacker but going by the rules he was marginally offside.

 

Nope, not any part of the body but any part of the body that you can play the ball with. So if your arm is in an offside position but everything else is onside, you are onside.

[SuperMikey]

Quite, a lot of linesman would have given it and given him the benefit, but rules are rules and it was the right call. I'm sure we'll get one go our way soon. Rodriguez is definitely a confidence player and lacks that swagger a top striker needs, he has all the attributes, just lacks that arrogance that makes a decent player a good one.

 

Think he needs a goal or two. He was sh!t hot for 5 minutes after the disallowed one today but faded really badly towards the end. There's finding space off the ball and then there's trying to avoid it...

 

We've got the potential for a lethal strikeforce with Rickie, Osvaldo and Jay - they just need to start putting them in the net to get that momentum.

[Turkish]

Nope, not any part of the body but any part of the body that you can play the ball with. So if your arm is in an offside position but everything else is onside, you are onside.

 

His shoulder was ahead of the defenders, he was offside. I obviously didn't mean arms FFS

Edited 24 August, 2013 by Turkish

[RonManager]

Because we know the rules and know he was offside then we're trolling. If we'd said it was definitely a goal and the linesman and rules are wrong we'd be great posters

 

Here's a great poster from the 1930s..

 

[Mystic Force]

Sometimes I just think all the interchange play just leaves the players unsure where their teamates are at time and what they need to do. Especialy after all the subs, and I think this lack of shape was part of JRods problem.

[PhilippineSaint]

Here's a great poster from the 1930s..

 

 

Is that the one from the boardroom??

[Saint Bones]

Sure was a close call, but after several replays sadly for us I think the correct decision was made... could have gone either way and well the ref's calls didnt really go our way yesterday.

 

Went absolute bonkers for about 15 seconds before seeing J-Rods face and knowing there was a damn flag raised...

[niceandfriendly]

As the ball was kicked he wasn't offside lads. Very hard for you to see first time at the game, but when you see the replays and they put that fancy line across the pitch on the last defender, Jay was without question onside. Very hard call for the lino, but in those circumstances the benefit should be given to the striker (especially as he was on! )

 

Great finish too. So if that had been given I don't think we'd have this thread, and we might be celebrating a win with J-Rod playing a huge part it.

[niceandfriendly]

Because we know the rules and know he was offside then we're trolling. If we'd said it was definitely a goal and the linesman and rules are wrong we'd be great posters

 

It's all very well knowing the rules son, but if you don't apply them to the action you're watching then you look rather silly. Here's another rule you might find handy... the offside call is made when the ball is kicked, not a split second after the ball has left the passers foot. Maybe this is where you're getting confused.

 

And as for "We'd be going mental if Sunderland had scored that goal it was given"... yes we would, if the Sunderland player was offside.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

The lino's job is a well nigh impossible one in these very tight situations as Humans are just not designed to be capable of simultaneously looking in two different directions. In short the law is a ass.

 

I've only seen the MOTD replay of this incident once, based on that evidence my two pennethworth is that JRod looks essentially in-line with the last defender.

 

Given my understanding of the correct interpretation of the law, the attacker should be given the benefit of the doubt and the goal should therefore have been given.

[Professor]

Rule 11 says:-

A player is in an offside position if:

•he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

 

How does that deal with arms, a foot or any other body part if the player himself is not nearer the goal? This wording also makes being level, onside, since if level a player is not nearer the goal line. But if players are level, both are likely to have a part of their body nearer the goal line than the other. To be absolutely level in respect of every part of the body is virtually impossible. If a referee or assistant treats a player as offside due to a hand or a foot, or a shoulder, that has been stretched beyond any part of the opponents body, how is that consistent with the wording of the rule? We hear a lot about players being level but if you adopt the 'any part of the body' interpretation, being 'level' would be virtually impossible. The decision by yesterday's assistant would seem to exclude the possibility of players ever being judged level so I wonder if the Assistant simply got it wrong because JRod was moving past the defender and it was speed that beat the Assistant. If you go for that, then a goal was wrongly disallowed. As Chapel End Charlie has said, the judgement is almost impossible to make in such tight situations but it does seem right to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker as there is no unfair play in the attacker having just part of his body beyond the defender when he still has to run past him.

[grezz]

He wasn't 'in-line' though. It was very, very, VERY marginal but if you take the Saints goggles off you have to admit he was offside by the width of a gnat's wing, with his upper torso slightly leaning into the offside position. Had the goal stood I don't think anyone could have complained just as we can't that it wasn't given. Holding a lino up on a charge when the decision is that tight is just daft (and does it get tighter than that?).

 

As it was, the lino got it right. He was able to see the point of impact of the pass plus the positions of the respective players in the fraction of a second it happened and he got it right. It was an exceptionally good decision, maybe more by luck than judgment because it should be impossible to KNOW the correct decision in that situation. So for me it's a non-issue. We could have gotten lucky very easily but we didn't. That's football.

[max_saints]

think SRL was as guilty of missing as many chances as jrod, so many headers straight at the keeper

[trousers]

Given it was so close, how could the linesman have been 100% certain is was offside? According to the rules, does the linesman have to be 100% certain before be can legitimately give offside or is he allowed to give it on a less than 100% hunch?

 

If the former then it was an incorrect decision, if the latter then it was a valid decision.

[Matty's Caddy]

Jrod just ain't good enough I'm afraid

[Whitey Grandad]

Given it was so close, how could the linesman have been 100% certain is was offside? According to the rules, does the linesman have to be 100% certain before be can legitimately give offside or is he allowed to give it on a less than 100% hunch?

 

If the former then it was an incorrect decision, if the latter then it was a valid decision.

 

If he was in any doubt then he wouldn't have flagged.

[Whitey Grandad]

Rule 11 says:-

A player is in an offside position if:

•he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

 

How does that deal with arms, a foot or any other body part if the player himself is not nearer the goal? This wording also makes being level, onside, since if level a player is not nearer the goal line. But if players are level, both are likely to have a part of their body nearer the goal line than the other. To be absolutely level in respect of every part of the body is virtually impossible. If a referee or assistant treats a player as offside due to a hand or a foot, or a shoulder, that has been stretched beyond any part of the opponents body, how is that consistent with the wording of the rule? We hear a lot about players being level but if you adopt the 'any part of the body' interpretation, being 'level' would be virtually impossible. The decision by yesterday's assistant would seem to exclude the possibility of players ever being judged level so I wonder if the Assistant simply got it wrong because JRod was moving past the defender and it was speed that beat the Assistant. If you go for that, then a goal was wrongly disallowed. As Chapel End Charlie has said, the judgement is almost impossible to make in such tight situations but it does seem right to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacker as there is no unfair play in the attacker having just part of his body beyond the defender when he still has to run past him.

 

You need to look at the supplementary document:

 

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/worldfootball/clubfootball/01/37/04/27/interpretation%5flaw11%5fen.pdf

 

Basically, 'anything except the arms'.

 

These interpretations change regularly depending on which way the wind is blowing. You're right though, being level is virtually impossible.

[trousers]

If he was in any doubt then he wouldn't have flagged.

 

But given it was so close, how could a human being have been 100% certain the player was offside? The human brain isn't capable of being 100% certain in split second situations. Surely?