You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

[Ray de Galles]

Has anyone seen it? Ebanks-Blake's momentum takes him off the pitch as he makes a cross, a team mate shoots but it is parried by the keeper in to the air and then E-B nips back on the pitch and heads it in.

Now, if the Italian player (Panucci?) in Euro 2008 was playing RvN onside after his momentum took him off the pitch why doesn't the same apply for an attacking player?

[Janik]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

Presumably Ebanks-Blake couldn't have been offside either way, as he wasn't involved in the 'phase of play' that saw the 'keeper parry the initial shot. So it doesn't really matter whether he was over the byline or not.

On the other hand (n.b. speaking based on your description, not on having seen the incident), it sounds like the ref would have been within his rights to disallow the goal for the player not seeking permission to re-enter the field of play.

[Outside Agent]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

I have yet to see it, but if I go by Harri's description of the incident, then Ebanks-Blake should have been flagged for offside. He was ahead of the ball and all defending players when his team-mate played the ball (the parry from the keeper is irrelevant). If Panucci was considered to be 'live' when off the pitch, as it was not an official departure from the field, then Ebanks-Blake is considered to be also 'live'.

[Janik]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

But, to quote your good self on the Spurs thread regarding Bent's goal today;

"An attacker in an offside position is only deemed onside when an opponent plays the ball intentionally."

How can a 'keeper making a save be described as anything other than playing the ball intentionally? If the interpretation you give above is correct (something I'm not sure of either way), once the Coventry 'keeper had saved the initial shot then it wouldn't matter where Ebanks-Blake was coming on to the ball from.

[Outside Agent]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

A keeper parrying a shot is not considered to be in possession and playing the ball. It's the equivalent of sticking a leg out to block the ball. We see it plenty of times when a shot is saved by a keeper, it comes out to a player who is offside, he puts it in the net but is flagged offside. Ebanks-Blake was that player yesterday, albeit his offside position happened to be beyond the goal-line.

[Jorge Porbillas]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

It shouldn't count because McCarthy's a cunt ... simple.

[Buzz Killington]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

As an...er...completely disinterested observer, I'd say it;s a perfectly good goal.

[boris]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

I haven't seen the incident, but from your description my interpretation would be that the player wouldn't be offside if he is behind the goalkeeper when the initial ball is played because to be offside there has to be one defender between him and the goal.

And if his momentum has carried him off the pitch then he doesn't need the referee's permission to re-enter the field of play.

Plus, I have never before heard that a player is played onside only if the defender plays the ball intentionally. As far as I'm aware any touch by the defender, whether meant or not, puts the attacker into an onside position.

[Ray de Galles]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

boris wrote:

I haven't seen the incident, but from your description my interpretation would be that the player wouldn't be offside if he is behind the goalkeeper when the initial ball is played because to be offside there has to be one defender between him and the goal.

Are you saying you are offside when there is only one of the opposition in front of you but not when there are none?

[willie1foot]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

Boris is wrong there. To be onside there has to be two opposition players between the player and the goal-line. If ther's one or none, he's offside.

I didn't see this incident, but based on the description above, I'd say the ref was correct to call it offside

[willie1foot]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

.... Or wrong to give a goal....

[David Agnew]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

When Kightly has the first shot, Ebanks-Blake is offside (although he isn't trying to gain advantage), but when the keeper parrys the shot, Ebanks-Blake is no longer considered offside.

[willie1foot]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

If the player was in an offside position at the time the shot was struck, he was offside when he played the ball parried by the goalie

[Ek weet nie]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

Jorge, why are you so worked up about McCarthy? I thought only Irish people on one side of the Saipan debate got that worked up about him.

[boris]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

willie1foot wrote:

Boris is wrong there. To be onside there has to be two opposition players between the player and the goal-line. If ther's one or none, he's offside.

I didn't see this incident, but based on the description above, I'd say the ref was correct to call it offside

You're right, I was wrong. And here's me, a qualified ref! (no wonder we're so shite.) So yes, the player should have been called for offside. The goal should also have been disallowed because it was scored by a Wolves player, which seems criminal enough to me.

[Ray de Galles]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

Video of the goal here (approx 2:10 in).

[Jorge Porbillas]

You are the ref- Wolves winner yesterday?

Nil Arshavin wrote:

Jorge, why are you so worked up about McCarthy? I thought only Irish people on one side of the Saipan debate got that worked up about him.

Nope, the man's a boorish twat. Had the misfortune of having to interview him and my suspicions were confirmed.