LAW 11 Offside

你熟識球例嗎?你遇過執法難題嗎?不妨到此跟大家分享討論吧!

版主: 版面管理員

文章ahsir » 07年3月22日10:31 週四

:smt004

出動到智多星 ? - 勁 !!

有沒有結論不是問題,最重要的是

腦根在轉 - good.

:smt005
ahsir
 
文章: 21611
註冊時間: 03年11月9日23:12 週日

文章cho cole » 07年3月22日22:38 週四

如此的研討會都是第一次,對上聽大俠授課是本會的活動,上屆亞洲盃後,伊朗兩兄弟互打!

這一球,這話題,這一刻,自世界盃都困擾了本人一段日子!本人的結論都是認為是越位!但腦就轉,人們就唔轉,式怎辦?..........
因依現在的球例解說及精神,時間性都應該是越位!不知大家有何高見!可歡迎發表!
還要領導們指點指點!
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
頭像
cho cole
 
文章: 26158
註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
來自: HKFRA

文章ahsir » 08年1月7日14:32 週一

:smt005

Offside : 70% 注視力 BALL

余30% LAST DEFENDER

BALL / LAST DEFENDER. 不簡單呢 !!


:smt018
ahsir
 
文章: 21611
註冊時間: 03年11月9日23:12 週日

文章cho cole » 08年2月1日23:57 週五

ahsir 寫::smt005

Offside : 70% 注視力 BALL

余30% LAST DEFENDER

BALL / LAST DEFENDER. 不簡單呢 !!


:smt018

年初一又來一次考驗! :smt006 :smt006
努力!
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
頭像
cho cole
 
文章: 26158
註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
來自: HKFRA

文章ahsir » 08年2月25日12:38 週一

ahsir 寫::smt005

Offside : 70% 注視力 BALL

余30% LAST DEFENDER

BALL / LAST DEFENDER. 不簡單呢 !!


:smt018


:smt014

Active and passive off-side situation.
"Wait & See"
"Play & Touch"
東亞 -北韓 & 澳洲 AR未如理...

:smt014
ahsir
 
文章: 21611
註冊時間: 03年11月9日23:12 週日

文章cho cole » 08年2月25日15:22 週一

緊記Wait & See :smt013
慢慢來! :smt006
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
頭像
cho cole
 
文章: 26158
註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
來自: HKFRA

文章ahsir » 08年2月29日17:54 週五

:smt007

FIFA 那動晝 DVD, very good la.

:smt005
ahsir
 
文章: 21611
註冊時間: 03年11月9日23:12 週日

文章cho cole » 08年2月29日18:42 週五

ahsir 寫::smt007

FIFA 那動晝 DVD, very good la.

:smt005

我看了三次了!有時間再睇!多謝領導! :smt006 :smt006
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
頭像
cho cole
 
文章: 26158
註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
來自: HKFRA

文章ahsir » 08年6月10日09:37 週二

:smt009

HOLLAND VS. ITALY

雲佬第一球 : OFFSIDE

Gaining an advantage by
being in that position呢

:smt014
ahsir
 
文章: 21611
註冊時間: 03年11月9日23:12 週日

文章Dennis Yip » 08年6月10日10:34 週二

100% agree! :smt003
*********************************
奧運精神 : 講求團結和和平,講求無私、公平、和諧、尊嚴和夥伴關係
頭像
Dennis Yip
 
文章: 2062
註冊時間: 03年11月6日09:23 週四

文章cho cole » 08年6月10日15:25 週二

Offside is discuss part of the game :smt016 :smt016
This is sccoer :smt012 :smt012
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
頭像
cho cole
 
文章: 26158
註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
來自: HKFRA

文章yeah09 » 08年6月11日13:37 週三

Not offside

UEFA General Secretary David Taylor was reacting to claims from some quarters that Van Nistelrooy was standing in an offside position when he scored the first of the Netherlands ' goals in their 3-0 win. "I would like to take the opportunity to explain and emphasise that the goal was correctly awarded by the referee team," he said. "I think there's a lack of understanding among the general football public, and I think it's understandable because this was an unusual situation. The player was not offside, because, in addition to the Italian goalkeeper, there was another Italian player in front of the goalscorer. Even though that other Italian player at the time had actually fallen off the pitch, his position was still relevant for the purposes of the offside law."



Still involved

The starting point, said Mr. Taylor, is the Laws of the Game – Law 11 – which deals with offside, and whereby a player is in an offside position if he is nearer to his opponents' goal-line than both the ball and the second last opponent. "There need to be two defenders involved," the UEFA General Secretary said. "If you think back to the situation, the first is the goalkeeper, and the second is the defender who, because of his momentum, actually had left the field of play. But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.



Rare incident

"This is a widely-known interpretation of the offside law amongst referees that is not generally known by the wider football public," he continued. "Incidents like this are very unusual – although I'm informed that there was an incident like this about a month ago in a Swiss Super League match between FC Sion and FC Basel 1893. [It was] initially suggested that this [goal] was a mistake by the referee in terms of the offside law – the commentator later apologised publicly, as he didn't realise that this was the correct application of the law. "



Law applied

Mr Taylor concluded: "So let's be clear – the referees' team applied the law in the correct manner.

If we did not have this interpretation of the player being off the pitch, then what could happen is that the defending team could use the tactic of stepping off the pitch deliberately to play players offside, and that clearly is unacceptable. The most simple and practical interpretation of the law in this instance is the one that is adopted by referees throughout the world – that is that unless you have permission from the referee to be off the pitch, you are deemed to be on it and deemed to be part of the game. That is why the Italian defender, even though his momentum had taken him off the pitch, was still deemed to be part of the game, and therefore the attacking player put the ball into the net, and it was a valid goal. The law in this place was applied absolutely correctly."
人逢喜事精神爽……
还可以一直做着梦!
頭像
yeah09
 
文章: 1547
註冊時間: 05年6月23日15:47 週四
來自: I LOVE THE GAME

文章cho cole » 08年6月11日16:00 週三

But this defender was still deemed to be part of the game. Therefore he is taken into consideration as one of the last two opponents. As a result, Ruud Van Nistelrooy was not nearer to the opponents' goal than the second last defender and, therefore, could not be in an offside position.
Good point :smt010 :smt010
????? :smt017 :smt017 :smt018 :smt018 :smt018
Good case sample :smt005 :smt005
How about the second moment :smt017 :smt017
cho cole
Keep strong never give up
頭像
cho cole
 
文章: 26158
註冊時間: 03年11月5日18:58 週三
來自: HKFRA

文章yeah09 » 08年6月11日16:59 週三

when the DFK kicked, the time run...
1-GK and defender have a charge.
2-the ball rebound to the out field player( out of the BOX).
3-he shoot the ball.
4-van scored.

when is the second moment(phrase)?
let's show it:
from 1- not offise; 2-no; 3-no; 4?
ok, see 3-4:
you think the moment 2 is a point (timeline), and 3-4 is another;
but, from 1-4, the defend team always keep 2 players(GK and a defender)
even when he lay on the pitch behind the goalline.

yes, in early time I think the case should be "offside"; until last night, when we were discuss about a player who may leave the pitch deliberately, we both agree that the case should be a good goal, and the defender also would be cautioned. that being the case, the defender who leave the pitch not deliberately, should also have a "fair opportunity"--not offside,but not received a yellow card.
其实,在不久前,陆俊就曾在电视上讲过这样一个案例,并认为不越位;当时我并不认同。直到说起如果一名队员是故意离开比赛场地球门线这一案例,我才想到;
法律不能鉴别一个人的故意或无意,他只能依据现象来判定;
法律的自由裁量能给予心理动机作辨析。
人逢喜事精神爽……
还可以一直做着梦!
頭像
yeah09
 
文章: 1547
註冊時間: 05年6月23日15:47 週四
來自: I LOVE THE GAME

文章ahsir » 08年6月11日21:52 週三

:smt018

不認同,守方球員在場外受傷倒地
背向球場完全放棄参予比賽•云佬
gaining an advantage by being
in that position.


有排拗 ........... :smt005
ahsir
 
文章: 21611
註冊時間: 03年11月9日23:12 週日

上一頁下一頁

回到 球例研討 (Laws of the Game)

誰在線上

正在瀏覽這個版面的使用者:沒有註冊會員 和 1 位訪客

cron