match thread (image) [FT] Rangers 4 (Tillman 32'; Colak 62'; Arfield 80'; Lawrence 83') - 0 St Johnstone

[the gunslinger 3,366]

1 hour ago, DMAA said:

Really pleased to see Colak get another goal. If a linesman had done his job that would be 4 goals in 5, and that’s even after being subbed fairly early in two of those. We need to provide him with more service if he is to keep it up, he’s feeding off scraps sometimes even against the dross. Would be interesting to see his goals vs xG.  

I think with VAR he would still be on 3 in 5. Good numbers none the less. 

[DMAA 3,742]

1 hour ago, the gunslinger said:

I think with VAR he would still be on 3 in 5. Good numbers none the less. 

Ball was played backwards. I did see someone say that was still offside but I don’t understand how. 

[Scott7 6,650]

I’ve lost the place with the offside law but the old rule was that you were onside if you were behind the ball when the ball was played.

[Bill 13,717]

3 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

I’ve lost the place with the offside law but the old rule was that you were onside if you were behind the ball when the ball was played.

That's how I always understood it. You can't be offside if you're behind the man playing the ball and if he's playing it backwards then you must be behind him. I think.

[DMAA 3,742]

4 minutes ago, Scott7 said:

I’ve lost the place with the offside law but the old rule was that you were onside if you were behind the ball when the ball was played.

With this one he was in an offside position but the ball was played backwards. It wasn’t offside in the past if the ball was played backwards. 

[Gonzo79 15,299]

VAR will fix it all*.

 

 

 

*providing all officials are fully aware of every specific detail of the rules 

[the gunslinger 3,366]

27 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Ball was played backwards. I did see someone say that was still offside but I don’t understand how. 

Normally when a ball goes backwards its to a player behind the attacker so onside but it's the being behind that makes it onside. It's all about where the reciever of the ball is when it is played not direction of the ball. 

 

Not sure about whether it being a block makes it different. 

 

I didn't know about the backwards thing until looking into it yesterday i must admit. 

[Bill 13,717]

8 minutes ago, Gonzo79 said:

VAR will fix it 

I wonder if appeals are allowed against VAR decisions

[craig 5,199]

54 minutes ago, DMAA said:

Ball was played backwards. I did see someone say that was still offside but I don’t understand how. 

The direction of ball doesnt matter if the player is still coming from an offside position.

[craig 5,199]

25 minutes ago, the gunslinger said:

Normally when a ball goes backwards its to a player behind the attacker so onside but it's the being behind that makes it onside. It's all about where the reciever of the ball is when it is played not direction of the ball. 

 

Not sure about whether it being a block makes it different. 

 

I didn't know about the backwards thing until looking into it yesterday i must admit. 

Exactly right.  We often think "the ball went backwards so he isnt offside" but what makes the player onside is a) the backwards pass AND b) the fact he is behind the player

 

The one on Saturday was offside because even though the ball was played backwards, Colak came from an offside position to collect it, makes him offside.

 

The block doesnt change that I don't think.  As soon as Matondo gets a touch on it, Colak is offside.