Because it shows it was a goal scoring opportunity.Why do this, when you could show a still frame of Jesus' position when the ball hit Laporte ?
I have posted the video.
It wasn't a non deliberate pass to him, it was a non deliberate pass to an empty area of the penalty area.
because its irrelevant - it comes off LAPORTES ARM and goes to GJ - GJ diretion of runhas nothing to do with this.....FFS!
I highlighted in bold the part where you went off topic. You keep trying to say the ball wouldn't have reached Jesus without Laporte's handball. That's incorrect because another variable would then come into play(Skipp's arm)... but we are going around in circles. Why not leave that part out? Your argument doesn't need it. I agree with everything but that.No im just looking at facts - so to keep it simple
The ball hits Laporte arm, changing the drection of the flight of the ball. the next touch is by a city player (GJ) who takes a touch and scores....the inadvertant pass by Lapote creates the opportunity and therefore the goal (whoever hurtful) is correctly disallowed - is the rule right -no but that s just my opinion...was the goal correctly ruled offside - yes by the rules of the game
yeah but your options are strictly limited when someone is stood between you and the goal.Of course it is. A goal scoring opportunity is the ability to shoot and there’s room either side of the defender. Have you ever stood by the six yard line and seen how big a full size goal actually is?
Because it shows it was a goal scoring opportunity.
If Laporte had passed the ball to Jesus there then people would have said it’s a great pass. Players rarely play a pass to a player who isn’t moving.
I’m not even sure why you’re still arguing this? What’s to prove? That the fix is in and we are going to get screwed every week? The PL and PGMOL have stood by their ruling on the decision and that their own rules were adhered to.
Well let’s agree to disagree then as I’m not changing my mind either.Nah you're taken a still an placed your own context to it. There wasn't an opportunity to shoot first time from the position he received it from. I've watched the replay thankyou.
However, Laporte did not “gain possession/control of the ball and then create a goal scoring opportunity”.-the bal came ot him from Laporte arm....thats all that matters - yes jesues made the goal but it was created and fell to him because of th deflection off Laportes arm
Yes no one is ever “there” when a pass is made. Players tend to move on to every ball they receive.You are aware Jesus wasn't 'there' ?
I do agree it was a handball by the rules we have currently btw.Well let’s agree to disagree then as I’m not changing my mind either.
I’m more pissed off about Oliver not giving the penalty to be honest.
Isn’t my edit the actual law?However, Laporte did not “gain possession/control of the or create a goal scoring opportunity”.
I highlighted in bold the part where you went off topic. You keep trying to say the ball wouldn't have reached Jesus without Laporte's handball. That's incorrect.
However, Laporte did not “gain possession/control of the ball and then create a goal scoring opportunity”.
It deflected off his arm with no intention, there was no possession or control involved.
Therefore the goal should have stood.
But that wouldn't have happened is what I'm saying, it almost certainly would have hit Skipp's arm. Where it would have gone we'll never know but I suspect a similar place to where Laporte's went.the ball would have gone somehwere near the edge of the area if no one had touched the ball...
No.Isn’t my edit the actual law?
No.
“
”
- gains possession/control of the ball after it has touched their hand/arm and then:
- scores in the opponents’ goal
- creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- scores in the opponents’ goal directly from their hand/arm, even if accidental, including by the goalkeeper
http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct
Ha. Then why are we disagreeing?I do agree it was a handball by the rules we have currently btw.
Yes because he’s a top striker and knows the percentages were better doing as he did. Doesn’t mean hitting it first time wasn’t an option.yeah but your options are strictly limited when someone is stood between you and the goal.
Do you honestly think GJ would have gone round someone at 2-2 in injury time if he could have got a shot off straight away?
So isn't that what they now class as the second phase if he didn't hit it first time?Yes because he’s a top striker and knows the percentages were better doing as he did. Doesn’t mean hitting it first time wasn’t an option.
I suppose it was rather pointless but I was theoretically saying... If the law was better and required there to be a clear advantage gained, it should have stood. :)Ha. Then why are we disagreeing?