Further to the above, let us not forget, the faux outrage at Ake's goal is the media's attempt to divert attention away from the incessant corrupt decisions given in favour of the rags. "You point to bad decisions given in favour of ManU - what about that farcical decision given in favour of Man City ! "
The precise wording of the Offside Law is as follows :
A player in an offside position is not necessarily offside. That player is deemed offside in the following circumstances
(a) If interfering with play by ........ (his) touching a ball
(b) Interfering with play by playing ..... a ball
Interfering with an opponent by :
(c) preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision.
(d) challenging an opponent for the ball
(e) clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent...
...or (f) makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball.
Gallagher and Webb's contribution to the debate about Ake's goal are interesting.
The clown Dermot Gallagher - having received his instructions from above - and clearly being prompted by the presenter to toe the party line - denounces the decision to let Ake's goal stand ( " a really poor decision" ) Gallagher argues that (c) + (e) are relevant. But the t.v. view from behind the goal confirms the Fulham Keeper had a clear view of the ball from the moment it left Ake's head. And Sorry Dermot - Akanji does NOT attempt to play the ball - he does the precise opposite and takes avoiding action to ensure he does not play the ball.
What was the judgement of Howard Webb ?. He judges that it was a wrong decision to allow the goal because the keeper delays his dive as a result of Akanji's actions. Webb is rewording (f) to make a case. Akanji's presence may well have influenced the keeper's thought process and delayed his dive but Akanji in no way impacts on the keeper's ability to play the ball. ( That is the wording of the law ) If Webb's reasoning was valid then any goal scored with a player in offside position could be chalked off.
So Webb reinvents the Laws of Football ! Looking back at that most corrupt decision ever - the St Marcus / Ratface / Attwell goal < which was 100% offside (b) (c) (f) >. Webb's verdict at the time, however, was that the goal should stand "under the letter of the law" ( but was not "in the spirit of the law" ) Bizarrely, Webb then added that there was no need to rewrite the Laws of the Game because they confirmed his opinion that the goal should stand .
P.S.Still very little attention to Salah's offside in the Liverpool vs Villa game. Why's that Howard ?
:
www.foxsports.com.au
