Project said:
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.
Yes it does! The rule is quite specific on the matter.
As has previously been posted, Gallas being active or inactive is irrelevant. The only relevant question is: in the opinion of the referee, was Schwarzer distracted or deceived by Gallas' movement for the ball?
-- Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:50 pm --
mike channon´s windmill said:
Should be flagged up from the moment it left Hundredstone´s foot - Gallas impeding keepers view - active - end of
Watch it again. Gallas didn't impede Schwarzer's view at all. End of!
-- Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:09 pm --
dannybcity said:
JimB said:
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.
I can't agree Jim,
Schwarzer can't fully commit to the save until the ball has passed Gallas therefore he has deceived Schwarzer (he's effectively dummied it) which has also distracted him. It's completely irrelevent whtehr he's stood directly in the way, he's still in his peripheral version. I've no dount Dean knows the wording of the rule inside out, he either doesn't understand how the game is played (which is criminal for a Premiership ref) or he has applied it wrong which in my book is akin to bad interpretation.
He's caused a talking point I suppose though and there's nothing better than a debate about the offside rule.
Having watched the replay quite a few times: Schwarzer was already fully committed to the dive before Gallas' intervention. He was mid leap. No part of his body position or trajectory changed as Gallas stretched for the ball. His body and arm remained fully stretched. All of which suggests to me that Schwarzer was neither distracted nor deceived.
I appreciate that you could ask whether Schwarzer might not have urged a bit more length and speed into his dive and stretched his body, arm and fingers a fraction more if Gallas hadn't made a play for the ball. But Mike Dean obviously didn't think so.
So it comes down to a judgement call. And that inevitably leads to some controversy. But, on this occasion, I think there's enough video evidence at least to give Mike Dean the benefit of the doubt.
-- Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:13 pm --
goat boy said:
What I was saying there is that , as I saw it, Shwarzer had already commited that way while the ball was travelling from Huddlestone's foot, and the keeper was beaten by the shot. Rendering Gallas and his postion totally irrelevant, imo. Therefore a good call by both the linesman and then the referee.
That's how I saw it too. And Mike Dean, it seems!<br /><br />-- Sun Oct 17, 2010 4:24 pm --<br /><br />
Carver said:
The point of conjecture here is that Gallas was clearly in an offside position
Actually, Gallas was only in an offside position by a matter of inches.
Yes, that's still in an offside offside position. I only stress the point because it appears to have become an accepted impression that Gallas was standing all alone, miles offside.
