Match Thread Liverpool 1-0 Everton, Wed 2nd April 20:00

Your Everton MOTM

  • Total voters
    405
  • Poll closed .
Lanolin said:
It's been that way for literally years though. I totally agree with you and have made the argument many times that it's not right, but the way the rules are (and have been for a long time) that isn't offside.
Click to expand...

So a player has to touch the ball to be considered affecting play? Im not sure that's true. The rule is, did the player affect play on the field? The answer is, yes, he absolutely did. So it was offside. The fact that they have introduced a confusing element into the equation makes no difference, they got it wrong. The ball was intentionally played to him. Had he let it go with nobody else attempting to make an interception and it rolled through to Pickford, then hes not offside under current rules. However, that simply isn't what happened, in much the same way a player can affect a keepers decision making by being in their eyeline, Diaz affected Tarkowskis, and therefore the game.
 

Jacko93 said:
So a player has to touch the ball to be considered affecting play? Im not sure that's true. The rule is, did the player affect play on the field? The answer is, yes, he absolutely did. So it was offside. The fact that they have introduced a confusing element into the equation makes no difference, they got it wrong. The ball was intentionally played to him. Had he let it go with nobody else attempting to make an interception and it rolled through to Pickford, then hes not offside under current rules. However, that simply isn't what happened, in much the same way a player can affect a keepers decision making by being in their eyeline, Diaz affected Tarkowskis, and therefore the game.
Click to expand...
No they don't have to touch it, I didn't say that? The rule (paraphrasing) is that they have to make a play for the ball. He didn't, he was just in an offside position and Tarkowski's decision was affected by that, but that happens in virtually every game to be honest, and has done for ages. Like I said, I've argued against it for years but it's not in any way a rare occurrence, it happens absolutely all the time.

EDIT - This was me commenting on the same thing over 4 years ago:

I think the law was interpreted correctly. I think it's a rubbish law, but I don't really see why people are so surprised by it, this might be the first goal scored from this exact situation but stuff like this happens literally every week. Defenders having to make clearances because somebody is offside but the ball then going to someone else who scores is effectively the same thing, the player only played at the ball because someone was offside but they end up being punished for it. It's the way the rule has been for ages now. Again, I don't like it at all but I think they were right to allow the goal with the rule the way it's written.
 
Last edited:
I expected much more in game naughtiness than what we got last night, in all honesty it was a bit tame, it wasn't the blood and thunder derby we got at Goodison (and even that didn't live up to heights of yesteryear). There was a lot of crying, and it started at KO with the moaning at the ref. Incessant.

slot n co seemed very satisfied a dubious use of the rules got them the win. A patchwork Everton side made more chances and had more goes on goal than them. The irony being Beto scores and is considered half a boot offside and it's wrapped up inside a minute, yet one of theirs is a meter and a half offside and it's nothing doing.

I wonder how soon it will be a similar case only roles reversed and the linesperson flags and it goes their way. As usual.
 

One absolute whopper at work today nearly in tears because I wouldn’t agree that Tarkowski should receive a retrospective 3 match ban, he looked at me all confused and said “ You aren’t even ashamed are you”? obviously I replied that my only shame was that Tarkowski didn't have to prise the remnants of Macalisters kneecap off his boot with a penknife. He genuinely seemed traumatised, the little quilt!
 
Bluebonic said:
One absolute whopper at work today nearly in tears because I wouldn’t agree that Tarkowski should receive a retrospective 3 match ban, he looked at me all confused and said “ You aren’t even ashamed are you”? obviously I replied that my only shame was that Tarkowski didn't have to prise the remnants of Macalisters kneecap off his boot with a penknife. He genuinely seemed traumatised, the little quilt!
Click to expand...
Oh the irony, a kopite saying someone should be "ashamed"!
 
Bluebonic said:
One absolute whopper at work today nearly in tears because I wouldn’t agree that Tarkowski should receive a retrospective 3 match ban, he looked at me all confused and said “ You aren’t even ashamed are you”? obviously I replied that my only shame was that Tarkowski didn't have to prise the remnants of Macalisters kneecap off his boot with a penknife. He genuinely seemed traumatised, the little quilt!
Click to expand...
Ask him if he's ashamed of Souness?
 

Sharpies volley said:
I just find it strange that a linesman can't get his flag up quick enough when our player is in such a miniscule offside position that the naked eye couldn't possibly have seen it, but the same linesman doesn't flag for their player being 2 yards offside.
Click to expand...
There are many words that we could substitute for ‘strange’ in your opening sentence.
 
Vintage said:
Ya on sky and bbc the ratio between what is written about Tarkowski tackle and the offside debate is mind boggling huge considering the goal was the biggest factor in the game and the whole offside thing for the rules of the game is a bigger talking point. It basically just seems a footnote in the conversation. Clear media bias really
Click to expand...
BBC have an article on the foul and the offside decision.

Foul gets 5 headings and a ‘have your say”.

Offside gets 1 heading!
 

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top