Huddlestones goal

[gxblue]

in my opinion, with someone putting the rule up saying in the opinion of the referee says it all , a law or a rule should not be an opinion it should be set in stone

 

[SamTheGuru]

in my opinion, with someone putting the rule up saying in the opinion of the referee says it all , a law or a rule should not be an opinion it should be set in stone

But then decisions could be reversed after the game couldn't they?

 

[gxblue]

no,people make mistakes just pointing out that in the rules it says in the opinion . it should somewhere say did the player make a motion towards the ball while offside if yes offside if no goal stands.

 

[A Blue]

A ball is played over the top of the defenders on the half way line. A player is walking back from an offside position, if he turns and runs after it, is he not offside unless he touches it ???????

 

[Soulboy]

It was clearly a legal goal.

Absolutely nothing wrong with it under the current rules and interpretation.

 

[Vic]

A ball is played over the top of the defenders on the half way line. A player is walking back from an offside position, if he turns and runs after it, is he not offside unless he touches it ???????

Correct, until it is obvious that he is the only attacker that can play the ball (and especially if there's a risk of collision with the goalkeeper). The assistant referee should not raise his flag until then - if another attacker comes from an onside position he can play the ball even if he's stood next to the guy who was in an offside position.

Re the definition of "interfering with an opponent”, the laws in other languages make it clear that the key thing is preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball (i.e. by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or movements or by making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent). Still open to interpretation but no call for criticising Shearer on this one.

 

[marcspurs]

The rules have made this issue very confusing, but having had this explained to me by a football league referee this morning as follows.......

Gallas is not active when Huddlestone shoots (even though he is stood in an offside position beyond the last defender)..... he is still inactive when the ball deflects off Baird (watch closely)..... this deflection nullifies any active or non active situation.......

The reason the linesman flagged was that he had not seen the deflection (nor could he have from his angle) off of Baird....... the linesman was right to flag from what he saw... the referee was right to overrule him because he had seen something the linesman did not... one of the very few times I have seen officials working together.....

Anyway, Mark Hughes must be sick of the sight of Spurs..... Hughes has only lost 2 of his last 20 PL as a manager.... yep you guessed it.... both to Spurs....

 

[RossyBlue1990]

What a joke of a goal, he makes an attempt to get a touch on it, if thats not interfering then i dont no what is!

and it cost me £100!

 

[Bluethemaway]

Spurs are fast becoming the new salford shite, with the media so far up twitchers arse it stinks!

 

[mike channon´s windmill]

Should be flagged up from the moment it left Hundredstone´s foot - Gallas impeding keepers view - active - end of