Huddlestones goal

[dannybcity]

you could see from one of the views show, yes he was offside, but he didnt touch the ball and did not block the keepers view, therefore i think it was the right call, even if gallas did attempt to go for the ball.

By that logic players could be allowed to stand near the keeper, without impeding his view, but dummy the ball as it went towards the goal as long as he didn't make contact. The goalkeeper would of course struggle to check if the player is in an offside position at the time the ball is struck therefore he would have to assume he was onside and not attempt to play the ball until it was past the dummying player, thus putting himself at a disadvantage. The referee has interpreted the rule wrong and Shearer's a fucking idiot for agreeing with him.

 

[dave_blue12]

To be fair Shearer is a fucking idiot full stop !

 

[dannybcity]

To be fair Shearer is a fucking idiot full stop !

This is very true.

 

[jamiegrimble]

For once I agree with Hansen who said If gallas is standing there and doesnt try to play the ball,thats one thing.But hes trying to play the ball.And surely by trying to play the ball hes got to be putting the goalkeeper off.
Linekar and Shearer then mobbed him with.
There is no advantage if he hasnt touched it or hes not in the line of sight of the goalkeeper,or it doesnt come back, and its none of them.Then Shearer said the referee is right:)

 

[JimB]

you could see from one of the views show, yes he was offside, but he didnt touch the ball and did not block the keepers view, therefore i think it was the right call, even if gallas did attempt to go for the ball.

By that logic players could be allowed to stand near the keeper, without impeding his view, but dummy the ball as it went towards the goal as long as he didn't make contact. The goalkeeper would of course struggle to check if the player is in an offside position at the time the ball is struck therefore he would have to assume he was onside and not attempt to play the ball until it was past the dummying player, thus putting himself at a disadvantage. The referee has interpreted the rule wrong and Shearer's a fucking idiot for agreeing with him.

Sorry, fella, but the referee hasn't "interpreted the rule wrong".

The relevant section reads:

"interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an
opponent

Did Gallas make a movement towards the ball? Certainly.

Is it possible that such a movement could, in other circumstances, have deceived or distracted a goalkeeper? Absolutely.

But, in this instance, Schwarzer was already in full flight, diving to his right to make the save. His movement didn't (indeed, couldn't) deviate one iota from its original trajectory, despite Gallas' attempted intervention. The simple truth is that there was no way that Schwarzer was ever going to be able to make the save - Gallas or no Gallas.

And that was clearly Mike Dean's opinion. As far as he was concerned, Gallas' attempted intervention didn't deceive or distract Schwarzer. And since the rule specifically states that such decisions must be a judgement call by the referee, he was entirely within his rights to overrule the linesman.

You could argue that Dean interpreted the events on the pitch incorrectly - that Schwarzer was deceived / distracted and that he would have made the save if Gallas hadn't made a play for the ball (though the video evidence suggests that you would be wrong to do so).

But you can't argue that Dean interpreted the rule incorrectly.

 

[BlueSinclair]

It was wrong, even it was Tevez. but these things happen. Annoying cause its our rival, still shit reffing. But so was the one against newcastle so we shouldn't cry to loud. Although this one was an unusual big fuck up.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

By that logic players could be allowed to stand near the keeper, without impeding his view, but dummy the ball as it went towards the goal as long as he didn't make contact. The goalkeeper would of course struggle to check if the player is in an offside position at the time the ball is struck therefore he would have to assume he was onside and not attempt to play the ball until it was past the dummying player, thus putting himself at a disadvantage. The referee has interpreted the rule wrong and Shearer's a fucking idiot for agreeing with him.

Sorry, fella, but the referee hasn't "interpreted the rule wrong".

The relevant section reads:

"interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an
opponent

Did Gallas make a movement towards the ball? Certainly.

Is it possible that such a movement could, in other circumstances, have deceived or distracted a goalkeeper? Absolutely.

But, in this instance, Schwarzer was already in full flight, diving to his right to make the save. His movement didn't (indeed, couldn't) deviate one iota from its original trajectory, despite Gallas' attempted intervention. The simple truth is that there was no way that Schwarzer was ever going to be able to make the save - Gallas or no Gallas.

And that was clearly Mike Dean's opinion. As far as he was concerned, Gallas' attempted intervention didn't deceive or distract Schwarzer. And since the rule specifically states that such decisions must be a judgement call by the referee, he was entirely within his rights to overrule the linesman.

You could argue that Dean interpreted the events on the pitch incorrectly - that Schwarzer was deceived / distracted and that he would have made the save if Gallas hadn't made a play for the ball (though the video evidence suggests that you would be wrong to do so).

But you can't argue that Dean interpreted the rule incorrectly.

Great post that should end the thread. Nice to see a little reasoned argument once in a while.

 

[Bill]

Should definitely have been disallowed !

Gallas goes for the ball when in an offside position, only missing the ball by a fraction, possibly distracting the goalkeeper and so must be deemed as active

Very poor decision !

Get used to it, they get them all the time, it's the way they stay in the top half.

 

[Project]

Who can you possibly say that Gallas wasn't in the keepers line of sight? He was stood at his post! He wasn't directly in front of him, but your field of vision is slightly wider than that! Shearer is an utter clown.

He was active, plain and simple. It doesn't matter if Schwarzers dive was affected or not. The rule doesn't make a concession for that.

 

[SamTheGuru]

I think what Shearer was saying is that by the law of football it was not offside because the player did not touch the ball and the player was not blocking the keeper's view but common sense says that the goal should be clearly disallowed.

Edit: I stand corrected, someone has posted the rules above. Shearer is a tit.