Hibs 2nd - offside

[1two]

I like to think I watch enough football to know the offside rule (and I watch a lot of football...

I’ve sat and listened to Michael Stewart, Graham Alexander and other suggest our 2nd shouldn’t have stood and I honestly can’t see it, not even close.

What am I missing?

[Hibbyradge]

I like to think I watch enough football to know the offside rule (and I watch a lot of football...

I’ve sat and listened to Michael Stewart, Graham Alexander and other suggest our 2nd shouldn’t have stood and I honestly can’t see it, not even close.

What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that it was offside!

Why do you think it was onside?

[bob12345]

Looked offside to me at a glance, although the angle shown at was inconclusive.

[BS44]

I like to think I watch enough football to know the offside rule (and I watch a lot of football...

I’ve sat and listened to Michael Stewart, Graham Alexander and other suggest our 2nd shouldn’t have stood and I honestly can’t see it, not even close.

What am I missing?

Only one Motherwell player behind Irvine, definitely offside

[Pickle]

You need 2 players behind you to be offside, as the keeper was ahead of Irvine and the second defender was ahead of him too he was offside. Thankfully no VAR for our poor Scottish game 👍

[1two]

I can’t find a picture but the Motherwell defender is behind Irvine when the ball is played

[Wheat Hound]

I think Gallacher is possibly in line. It's a tight call anyway.

[Hiber-nation]

I can’t find a picture but the Motherwell defender is behind Irvine when the ball is played

Look where their keeper is!!

[H18 SFR]

I can’t find a picture but the Motherwell defender is behind Irvine when the ball is played

The keeper isn’t though.

[BoomtownHibees]

I can’t find a picture but the Motherwell defender is behind Irvine when the ball is played

There needs to be 2

[PatHead]

Normally the goalie is behind the guy who knocks it in. Today he wasn't.

Think it should have been given as offside but hey ho. About time we got a decision.

[1two]

I missed the keeper being ahead of Irvine, haven’t I?

[H18 SFR]

Have I missed the keeper being ahead of Irvine, haven’t I?

In a word, yes. He’s in blue btw 😂😂😂

[IberianHibernian]

Only one Motherwell player behind Irvine, definitely offsideYes definitely offside unless rule was changed to only 1 player at some point . Not even marginal .

[Andy74]

There was one angle on Hibs TV that showed a further defender bottom of the screen that was out of picture in all the close ups. Might have imagined it or it was misleading but looked like he was keeping him on.

[hibee1875]

I can’t find a picture but the Motherwell defender is behind Irvine when the ball is played

To be onside you need 2 opposition team players behind the ball. 99% of the time thats the last defender and the keeper but the keeper was ahead of Irvine. There was the player on the line then he needed someone else to keep him onside, Gallagher was also slightly ahead of him

[BoomtownHibees]

Yes definitely offside unless rule was changed to only 1 player at some point . Not even marginal .

It may have been off but it was 100% marginal. Declan Gallagher is almost in line with Irvine and then there’s a defender on the line

[Callum_62]

It may have been off but it was 100% marginal. Declan Gallagher is almost in line with Irvine and then there’s a defender on the lineYep and Irvine moves back towards the ball as nisbet shoots - marginal call and a difficult one for the lino

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[1two]

I actually know thats the rule, but think I’m so used to dismissing the 2nd player as the keeper almost always ticks that box.

So yes, he is offside 😂

[Hibbyradge]

I can’t find a picture but the Motherwell defender is behind Irvine when the ball is played

Only one though

[Broken Gnome]

I'm going to be a bit nonsensical and say if that's ruled out, Lamie doesn't score two minutes later and we see the game out 1-0.

We were infinitely worse off at 2-1 than 1-0.

[IberianHibernian]

It may have been off but it was 100% marginal. Declan Gallagher is almost in line with Irvine and then there’s a defender on the lineCompared with many goals we see disallowed I would say it wasn`t even marginal . Looked like Nisbet`s shot was going wide so Irvine did right thing but what would correct decision have been if shot was going in and Irvine knowing he was offside didn`t touch ball ? I thought it was a penalty when cross came in though Hibs TV commentator hardly mentioned it .

[CyberSauzee]

I like to think I watch enough football to know the offside rule (and I watch a lot of football...

I’ve sat and listened to Michael Stewart, Graham Alexander and other suggest our 2nd shouldn’t have stood and I honestly can’t see it, not even close.

What am I missing?

FFS!! It's definitely offside. A goalscoring part of your body only has one (or none) defender in front of you when the ball is played forward, AND you are interfering with play.

So Irvine had a goalscoring part of his body in a position on the pitch with only one defender ahead of him, ball is passed forward, he scores, he's offside.

We got away with one.

[Sir David Gray]

There was one angle on Hibs TV that showed a further defender bottom of the screen that was out of picture in all the close ups. Might have imagined it or it was misleading but looked like he was keeping him on.

Nah definitely offside, only one Motherwell player between Irvine and the goal.

[Pretty Boy]

The defender nearest the main stand was behind the keeper as well as the guy in the middle. I still think it was off but it was tighter than it looked initially.

[Onion]

Love it when we get debatable decisions. Brasses off the Hibs haters, and evens things out (as they say).

[Smartie]

I thought it was miles offside.

Really wishful thinking to try to squeeze Gallagher into a position where he’s level.

What I would say is that these sorts of decisions are really difficult when you are watching from the linesman’s angle. It’s hard enough when you are jogging along level with “the last man” (apart from the goalkeeper).

When the goalkeeper is out, on the deck, and there are players behind him it is really difficult to keep the concentration and figure out whether or not there are 2 defenders goal side at the exact moment the ball is knocked forward.

It’s situations like this where properly implemented VAR should be able to help out the officials.

[Suburban Hibby]

You need 2 players behind you to be offside, as the keeper was ahead of Irvine and the second defender was ahead of him too he was offside. Thankfully no VAR for our poor Scottish game 👍

Wow, 51 this year and I thought because the defender was on the line it was onside- has it always been two players to play onside?

Learn something new everyday

[Andy74]

The defender nearest the main stand was behind the keeper as well as the guy in the middle. I still think it was off but it was tighter than it looked initially.

Yeah seen it again now and it’s tricky because Gallagher is a bit out of shot when Nisbet touches it. If the camera moves to being in line it gets pretty tight. It is amazing how the angle can be pretty deceiving.

Anyway, not as obvious an offside as it might have looked.

[Ozyhibby]

Looked offside at the time and the replay confirmed it for me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[IberianHibernian]

VAR would have given offside immediately I suppose but I thought it was a penalty on Irvine when Newell`s cross came in . Not a stonewaller but certainly clearer than many that are given and would have been an escape route for ref .

[BoomtownHibees]

Compared with many goals we see disallowed I would say it wasn`t even marginal . Looked like Nisbet`s shot was going wide so Irvine did right thing but what would correct decision have been if shot was going in and Irvine knowing he was offside didn`t touch ball ? I thought it was a penalty when cross came in though Hibs TV commentator hardly mentioned it .

He was pretty much in line with the 2nd last defender so of course it’s ‘marginal’. If the shot was going in and there wasn’t a touch then it would have been a goal

[Danderhall Hibs]

Definitely offside but we’re due a few decisions to even things out over the season.

[Peevemor]

He was pretty much in line with the 2nd last defender so of course it’s ‘marginal’. If the shot was going in and there wasn’t a touch then it would have been a goalI'm not sure the shot was going in.

Cliff kept going on about Nisbet being onside when he shot. Talk about missing the point...

[Andy74]

In the YouTube highlights posted below there is an angle of the players just after Irvine turns away to celebrate. It just flashes up after moving to Ross. From that camera further down towards the goal Gallacher further towards the goal line than he looks from the other angle and he is still walking further from the goal line.

Think it is tighter than it appears on the main angle.

[hibby6270]

Wow, 51 this year and I thought because the defender was on the line it was onside- has it always been two players to play onside?

Learn something new everyday

Yep. Normally that second player will be the keeper but because he’d rushed out to try and cut it out, he was ahead of Irvine and their 2nd defender was marginally ahead of Irvine, so technically he was offside. That said, it was only when the replay was frozen that it became “clearer”. In real time, it would have been difficult to see for definite. But hey, we win some, we lose some. Went our way this time, otherwise we’d have got beat 2-1 - no ET - no penalties!!

[Hibee Mac]

It was offside without a doubt. Totally see why it wasn't given though as it's a very tough call to make in real time.

Nice to get the rub of the green but I though we had a decent penalty shout just before it plus I feel like we deserved to win that game over the piece anyway so not an injustice.

[BoomtownHibees]

I'm not sure the shot was going in.

Cliff kept going on about Nisbet being onside when he shot. Talk about missing the point...

I don’t think it was going in either

[O'Rourke3]

Kris Boyd will now add this one to his Rant list

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[Allant1981]

Yes definitely offside unless rule was changed to only 1 player at some point . Not even marginal .

Of course it was marginal, the right back was almost in line with him, the linesman clearly thought behind which made him the 2nd player

[IberianHibernian]

It was offside without a doubt. Totally see why it wasn't given though as it's a very tough call to make in real time.

Nice to get the rub of the green but I though we had a decent penalty shout just before it plus I feel like we deserved to win that game over the piece anyway so not an injustice.That`s how I see it . Definitely offside , not even marginal compared with a lot of decisions we see all the time . Marginal decisions are split second , this wasn`t . Nisbet`s shot wasn`t that powerful ( If it had been , Irvine wouldn`t have been able to put it in so comfortably ) But it should have been a penalty for push on Irvine when cross came in . He claimed , got up and scored from offside decision .

[Hibernia&Alba]

FFS!! It's definitely offside. A goalscoring part of your body only has one (or none) defender in front of you when the ball is played forward, AND you are interfering with play.

So Irvine had a goalscoring part of his body in a position on the pitch with only one defender ahead of him, ball is passed forward, he scores, he's offside.

We got away with one.

Correct. If we had VAR, it would have been chalked off. We did get a break there.

[Andy74]

Sportscene angle shows it was much closer than many thought. Might have been marginally ahead of the defender but very close. Linesman was pretty much at corner flag so from his angle Irvine would certainly have looked on.

[Eyrie]

Irvine was definitely off but, given how often we're on the wrong end of the refereeing mistakes, I'm not going to complain.

[Jones28]

Pretty convoluted rule: if behind the goal keeper there has to be two players in front of the striker?

[hibbysam]

Pretty convoluted rule: if behind the goal keeper there has to be two players in front of the striker?

It’s two players goal side at all times, one is normally the keeper, but where the keeper is wandering, it needs to be two other players.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Pretty convoluted rule: if behind the goal keeper there has to be two players in front of the striker?

It just means there has to be any two defenders closer to the goal than the furthest forward attacker.

[ian cruise]

I'm not sure the shot was going in.

Cliff kept going on about Nisbet being onside when he shot. Talk about missing the point...

Just watching Sportscene, definitely wasn't going in without Irvine taking a touch.

We're due a bit of luck so I'll take it.

[Danderhall Hibs]

Mile off - showed it on sportscene just now.

[Hibee Mac]

Pretty convoluted rule: if behind the goal keeper there has to be two players in front of the striker?It's not really convoluted, its just most people have grown up not realising it so assume the goal keeper is a fundamental part of offside but he's not.

[GreenCastle]

No advantage and we will take the penalty for the shove on Irvine.

[brianmc]

Pretty convoluted rule: if behind the goal keeper there has to be two players in front of the striker?

Wow. Are you trolling or have you really no clue about the offside law?

[Superfurry72]

No advantage and we will take the penalty for the shove on Irvine.

Yep, amazed no one has mentioned that their keeper also cleans out Boyle too. So two pens in there before the goal.

[matty_f]

Could easily have had a penalty for the challenge in Irvine immediately before it so in one moment a decision has evened itself out.

[EdinMike]

If we’re are going to discuss the the fact that this is offside, which in the laws of the game it is, then it probably was a penalty seconds prior. But no doubt it will be over analysed being us !

[Carheenlea]

It’s a bit of a daft rule anyway so glad that it stood. Best team won on the day regardless

[hibbysam]

It’s a bit of a daft rule anyway so glad that it stood. Best team won on the day regardless

Is it? If the rule was one player then there would effectively be no offsides...

[Sir David Gray]

It’s a bit of a daft rule anyway so glad that it stood. Best team won on the day regardless

How so?

[GibbytheHibby2]

VAR would have given offside immediately I suppose but I thought it was a penalty on Irvine when Newell`s cross came in . Not a stonewaller but certainly clearer than many that are given and would have been an escape route for ref .

Spot on. It was a penalty and how all the commentary hasn’t picked up on that sums up the level of punditry. Irvine was wiped out with the ball whizzing past. Could also have been a red card.

[McD]

It looks offside, but I think a few people have a very different understanding to the word mile/miles than I do


its very close but he’s offside

[bod]

Too tight to call for me ,
still don’t want VAR even if it was at the other end

[MKHIBEE]

I'm going to be a bit nonsensical and say if that's ruled out, Lamie doesn't score two minutes later and we see the game out 1-0.

We were infinitely worse off at 2-1 than 1-0.

I thought the same when they scored the 2nd

[hibee-boys]

It’s not been often a goalkeeper is not one of the last defenders, every chance that the linesman was just looking at the last Motherwell defender so called it onside but it wasn’t, we’ve had plenty decisions go against us this year so I’ll not be losing any sleep over it.

[Forza Fred]

A lot of people get confused when offside is called in such circumstances as we are discussing.

Yes it was Rule 11 of the Laws of the game do not differentiate between ‘goalkeepers’ and ‘outfield players’

They are opponents.

And offside is not decided by where the last opponent is, but the second last.

IFAB Rules of the game is your friend.

[Curried]

In the YouTube highlights posted below there is an angle of the players just after Irvine turns away to celebrate. It just flashes up after moving to Ross. From that camera further down towards the goal Gallacher further towards the goal line than he looks from the other angle and he is still walking further from the goal line.

Think it is tighter than it appears on the main angle.

Indeed......it looks like 2 defenders (Gallagher (31) and Lamie (4)) are both goal side of Irvine when Nesbet knocks the ball goalward.

Approximately 58/59 secs into this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRGEAuTAsaE

Fine margins, but I think the Lino got it right.

[Sir David Gray]

Indeed......it looks like 2 defenders (Gallagher (31) and Lamie (4)) are both goal side of Irvine when Nesbet knocks the ball goalward.

Approximately 58/59 secs into this clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRGEAuTAsaE

Fine margins, but I think the Lino got it right.

There was definitely only one Motherwell defender between Irvine and the goal when the ball is played to him.

[CentreLine]

There was definitely only one Motherwell defender between Irvine and the goal when the ball is played to him.

Yep. The frozen picture with the big white line across it on Sportscene last night puts it beyond doubt. And surprisingly off by about a yard. Didn’t see that in real time from the tv camera angle.

[BoomtownHibees]

There was definitely only one Motherwell defender between Irvine and the goal when the ball is played to him.

Declan Gallagher is almost in line with him as well which you don’t see in every view, but I do reckon Irvine is just slightly ahead so should have been offside. Not that I care much 😁

[gbhibby]

VAR would have given offside immediately I suppose but I thought it was a penalty on Irvine when Newell`s cross came in . Not a stonewaller but certainly clearer than many that are given and would have been an escape route for ref .
Agree the ref had escape route was a penalty all day long. Makes it difficult for lino as they have to be in line with the last defender, If so looking accross the pitch Gallagher probably looked in line remember these guys only see it once.
You win some you lose some.

[Andy74]

Yep. The frozen picture with the big white line across it on Sportscene last night puts it beyond doubt. And surprisingly off by about a yard. Didn’t see that in real time from the tv camera angle.

The line they put in made it look much more offside than it was I think.

Anyway, before that angle came out the consensus seemed to be that it was miles off and there wasn’t a player anywhere near being a second defender.

There was and when you factor the linesman was at the corner flag looking back across then Irvine would have looked onside.

[CMurdoch]

I'm going to be a bit nonsensical and say if that's ruled out, Lamie doesn't score two minutes later and we see the game out 1-0.

We were infinitely worse off at 2-1 than 1-0.

No your right.
If the goal is disallowed a whole different movie rolls out and everything in the game thereon until the end of 90 mins is changed.
Suspect it may have ended 1-1 but hanging on for 1-0 was a possibility.

[Keith_M]

Here's two images, a fraction of a second apart. One showing him receiving the ball and one showing him scoring.

Look at the position of the defender on the left then decide if he's onside.

(click on them to view the larger version)


24615

24616

[gbhibby]

No your right.
If the goal is disallowed a whole different movie rolls out and everything in the game thereon until the end of 90 mins is changed.
Suspect it may have ended 1-1 but hanging on for 1-0 was a possibility.
Space time continuum and flux capacitor comes into play.

[Andy74]

Here's two images, a fraction of a second apart. One showing him receiving the ball and one showing him scoring.

Look at the position of the defender on the left then decide if he's onside.

(click on them to view the larger version)


24615

24616

The images are taken at the wrong angle to tell.

The in line images bring the defender bottom left much more in line. Probably still just off but it is closer than it looks from there.

[Dr What If?]

Here's two images, a fraction of a second apart. One showing him receiving the ball and one showing him scoring.

Look at the position of the defender on the left then decide if he's onside.

(click on them to view the larger version)


24615

24616
When I first saw the goal I thought he was off by a mile and a real clanger by the officials, thrown by the position of the keeper....this shows it was much much tighter.....probably still off but not by much. Watched MOTD last night, VAR isn't the solution.

[Keith_M]

The images are taken at the wrong angle to tell.

The in line images bring the defender bottom left much more in line. Probably still just off but it is closer than it looks from there.


That's entirely possible, Andy, but I think the linesman could be excused if he made a mistake, as it definitely seems quite marginal either way.

[Hibbyradge]

The images are taken at the wrong angle to tell.

The in line images bring the defender bottom left much more in line. Probably still just off but it is closer than it looks from there.

It's also when the ball is played forward, not received.

Last night, I think Brighton had a goal disallowed for offside but the ball didn't actually go forward.

[gbhibby]

The Motherwell player sliding in to block the shot does he get a touch? Does that change the phase of play? The ref may have thought the defender got a touch on the ball the same defender who fouled Jackson when the cross came in.Gets the ref out of jail for not awarding penalty. This push was mentioned on the radio but not even discussed on the sportscene on TV.

[Hibbyradge]

The Motherwell player sliding in to block the shot does he get a touch? Does that change the phase of play? The ref may have thought the defender got a touch on the ball the same defender who fouled Jackson when the cross came in.

When Nesbit heads the ball to Irvine, he's offside.

[hibbysam]

It's also when the ball is played forward, not received.

Last night, I think Brighton had a goal disallowed for offside but the ball didn't actually go forward.

The ball doesn’t have to travel forwards. The position of the ball is the offside line if beyond the second last defender. If the receiver is in front of the ball then he is offside, regardless if the ball goes forward, back or sideways.

[gbhibby]

When Nesbit heads the ball to Irvine, he's offside.
Didn’t head it, but the offside rule is so complicated that if the ref sees a touch from the Motherwell defender does that then start a different phase of play?

[hibbysam]

Didn’t head it, but the offside rule is so complicated that if the ref sees a touch from the Motherwell defender does that then start a different phase of play?

No as it was a shot. A block, or attempted block, or a save, doesn’t constitute a new phase of play, only an intentional touch such as a control.

[weecounty hibby]

It was very tight, much closer than any of the media would have you believe. The long and the short if it is that the goal was given and we're in another semi final.

[Hibbyradge]

Didn’t head it, but the offside rule is so complicated that if the ref sees a touch from the Motherwell defender does that then start a different phase of play?

Yes, it was a shot, but I don't know which touch you mean. The ball went directly to Irvine and he was offside.

[gbhibby]

No as it was a shot. A block, or attempted block, or a save, doesn’t constitute a new phase of play, only an intentional touch such as a control.
What if it was deemed to be a pass? Just that I have seen explanations given by refs that the touch by a defender starts a new phase of play. Anyway Livi got a goal earlier in the season which should have been flagged for offside so we look like we got lucky this time.

[HibbyKeith]

My VAR attempt from the only decent angle from the goal highlights just as the splash screen appears. By eye trying to keep my offside line parallel with the goal line. Looks pretty conclusive.

https://ibb.co/FV9M9Yj

We're in the semi though and if this irks the bellends on Sportscene it delights me even more.

GGTTH

[gbhibby]

Yes, it was a shot, but I don't know which touch you mean. The ball went directly to Irvine and he was offside.
It was an attempted block by the Motherwell player of the initial shot don't think he touched it
In my opinion he was offside but I am not sure if a touch by a defender then puts him onside. Any qualified refs out there?

[Danderhall Hibs]

My VAR attempt from the only decent angle from the goal highlights just as the splash screen appears. By eye trying to keep my offside line parallel with the goal line. Looks pretty conclusive.

https://ibb.co/FV9M9Yj

We're in the semi though and if this irks the bellends on Sportscene it delights me even more.

GGTTH

It was well offside and I think everyone on Sportscene agreed - including Scott Allan.

[matty_f]

It was well offside and I think everyone on Sportscene agreed - including Scott Allan.

Yep, definitely offside, even allowing for camera angles, there’s still a decent amount in it. Not that we weren’t due one like that anyway.

[Hibbyradge]

I wonder how many Motherwell fans are stoic about going out of the cup because at least we don't have VAR. :wink:

[gbhibby]

I wonder how many Motherwell fans are stoic about going out of the cup because at least we don't have VAR. :wink:
VAR would have probably given a goal given its track record. There has been more press given to VAR decisions than there was given to the decisions made by refs prior to VAR.
Is the VAR in the semis and final?

[Hibbyradge]

VAR would have probably given a goal given its track record. There has been more press given to VAR decisions than there was given to the decisions made by refs prior to VAR.
Is the VAR in the semis and final?

It's not VAR that makes decisions.

No, VAR isn't used in Scotland yet. Unless that's changed.

[Newhaven]

Post #93 and still no real conclusive answer to the OP’s question...

[HibbyKeith]

Post #93 and still no real conclusive answer to the OP’s question...

post #5 answered it

[Eyrie]

Post #93 and still no real conclusive answer to the OP’s question...
It was answered quickly and conclusively, but there have been several attempts to pretend the officials didn't make a mistake in our favour.


I like to think I watch enough football to know the offside rule (and I watch a lot of football...

I’ve sat and listened to Michael Stewart, Graham Alexander and other suggest our 2nd shouldn’t have stood and I honestly can’t see it, not even close.

What am I missing?


Only one Motherwell player behind Irvine, definitely offside


You need 2 players behind you to be offside, as the keeper was ahead of Irvine and the second defender was ahead of him too he was offside. Thankfully no VAR for our poor Scottish game 👍

[Hibernia&Alba]

Post #93 and still no real conclusive answer to the OP’s question...

Aye there is: it was offside.