Why don't the BBC or Sky Sports know the offside rule

[bigturnip]

When Jermain Defoe scored today he was offside, but it was only marginal, not the country mile that both the BBC and Sky are portraying. Both Sky, during halftime, and the BBC in MOTD2 have shown graphics drawing a line accross the last defender. When Bale made the cross, the ball was about two yards beyond the last defender, so that should be the point of reference they are using for their 'offside line', not the last defender.

Sky did manage to put it right in their post match analysis, their revised line went right between Defoe's feet, he was still offside as part of his body which can play the ball was infront of the ball when it was played, but we are talking inches, not the yards that all the pundits are harping on about. It was a very easy mistake to make and the idea that Defoe or the linesman are cheats is completely unjustified, because it really was quite close.

I can't believe that in the whole of the production teams of the BBC and Sky there is not one person who knows the offside rule.

 

[SpurSince57]

Oh, please… He was a mile off (OK, a yard or maybe two) when the ball was played. It was a shocking decision. On the other hand, we've had numerous shockers against us over the years, so what the hell?

 

[Dibby]

He was so far past the line that the line was a dot to him.

 

[bigturnip]

I agree he was off, no dispute about that, but it was marginal, my point is more about my amazement that neither Sky or the BBC know the offside rule and made it look much worse than it was by putting the line in the wrong place.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

I suppose this did even up the decision by Howard Sir Alex Ferguson Webb at Liverpool which again wouldn't have needed making if Defoe hadn't been offside to start with.

Is it really that hard to learn, I mean Iknow when making runs it's easy to stray if the ball doesn't come through on time sometimes but today he had to look along the line and think hang on I'm ahead of Bale here, this must make me offside.

 

[nferno]

it was blatant offside lol, there actually is no arguing it. I, myself, thought it should have been chalked off.. but then my dad reminded me of all the rightful goals we have scored that were disallowed (most notably the Pedro Mendes halfline effort against manure) and my opinion on the goal changed and i was glad it stood.

 

[bigturnip]

Nobody's arguing it was offside, but a lot of people (not on SC obviously) have been labelling Defoe a cheat, but the fact is the offside was a lot more marginal than is being made out and the BBC and Sky have done nothing to help the situation by not knowing the offside rule.

 

[SpurSince57]

I agree he was off, no dispute about that, but it was marginal, my point is more about my amazement that neither Sky or the BBC know the offside rule and made it look much worse than it was by putting the line in the wrong place.

Are you serious? Much more space between him and the last defender and you could have put a carriage and four through the gap.

 

[nferno]

it was farrr from marginal, but who cares about the beeb and sky.. we won!

 

[Dibby]

Marginal is a leg sticking out. Not enough room between the forward and defender to host the Olympics.

 

[bigturnip]

Are you serious? Much more space between him and the last defender and you could have put a carriage and four through the gap.

What does the last defender have to do with it? This is the same mistake the BBC and Sky have made, the point of reference for the offside is the ball because it was two yards beyond the last defender when it was played.

 

[Legend10]

Are you serious? Much more space between him and the last defender and you could have put a carriage and four through the gap.

In this case where the last defender was isn't the point, Defoe was virtually level with the ball. He was only marginally off, inches rather than yards that the idiots on tv were saying.

 

[Dibby]

What does the last defender have to do with it? This is the same mistake the BBC and Sky have made, the point of reference for the offside is the ball because it was two yards beyond the last defender when it was played.

No it's not you Turnip. That's only if the ball is ahead of the recipient. Bale wasn't beyond the back line.

 

[bigturnip]

Marginal is a leg sticking out. Not enough room between the forward and defender to host the Olympics.

The defenders are irrelavent because the ball was beyond them.

 

[bigturnip]

No it's not you Turnip. That's only if the ball is ahead of the recipient. Bale wasn't beyond the back line.

And if Defoe had been maybe a foot further back he would have been behind the ball. Bale was well beyond the back line and the ball even more so when he played it.

 

[the watson]

Play him off keyboard cat!

 

[cwy21]

You could say the same thing about most players, fans, managers, and pundits.

 

[Chris12345]

No it's not you Turnip. That's only if the ball is ahead of the recipient. Bale wasn't beyond the back line.

That's exactly the point, he was only a couple of inches away from being ahead of the recipient... no ones saying he was onside, but it was inches as opposed to yards

---------------Defoe
Ball------------------
Bale-----------------
--------------Defence

If you see what I mean...?

 

[TheBlueRooster]

I agree he was off, no dispute about that, but it was marginal, my point is more about my amazement that neither Sky or the BBC know the offside rule and made it look much worse than it was by putting the line in the wrong place.

It's not the offside rule, it's the offside law. Laws of the game, rules of competition. Maybe a bit pedantic, but if you want to get it right....

 

[Teemu]

That's exactly the point, he was only a couple of inches away from being ahead of the recipient... no ones saying he was onside, but it was inches as opposed to yards

---------------Defoe
Ball------------------
Bale-----------------
--------------Defence

If you see what I mean...?

Took me a minute to see what the hell you were trying to show but yes, you're exactly right :razz:

This is better analysis than The Last Word, frankly.