Huddlestones goal

[dannybcity]

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.

 

[marcspurs]

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

Whilst I agree with you, the new rules state otherwise.... why we can't just have the old rule back (if you are in an offside position, then you are offside) I don't know, these fools that have never played the game make up the rules.... it makes no sense......

Having said that, delighted with 3 points yesterday, not many teams will win at Fulham...

Nice trip to the San Siro on Wednesday and blue dippers next Saturday lunchtime.....

 

[goat boy]

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.

thanks jim, im on me phone and wasnt looking forward to typing that lot ;o) fair goal for me. the keeper made the dive, and he didnt react at all to gallas.

 

[Blue Smarties]

Huddlestone shoots.
Gallas goes to put ball across face of goal leaving the goalkeeper off balance and about to dive to one side.
Gallas then missed the ball forcing the goalkeeper to readjust within milliseconds and dive the other way.


Now then, if Gallas is having an effect on the goalkeeper surely he's active?

 

[marcspurs]

Huddlestone shoots.
Gallas goes to put ball across face of goal leaving the goalkeeper off balance and about to dive to one side.
Gallas then missed the ball forcing the goalkeeper to readjust within milliseconds and dive the other way.


Now then, if Gallas is having an effect on the goalkeeper surely he's active?

Yes this is all correct, however, the deflection off of Baird (who was outside the area) nullifies the active/inactive part of the offside ruling.... the lino flagged because he did not see the deflection..... nice to see a referee consult his assistant...

 

[dave_blue12]

Huddlestone shoots.
Gallas goes to put ball across face of goal leaving the goalkeeper off balance and about to dive to one side.
Gallas then missed the ball forcing the goalkeeper to readjust within milliseconds and dive the other way.


Now then, if Gallas is having an effect on the goalkeeper surely he's active?

Yes this is all correct, however, the deflection off of Baird (who was outside the area) nullifies the active/inactive part of the offside ruling.... the lino flagged because he did not see the deflection..... nice to see a referee consult his assistant...

Eh ???

He was offside when the ball was kicked !

 

[marcspurs]

Eh ???

He was offside when the ball was kicked !

Yes under the old rules, but now all that matters is whether he is active or not, under the new rules, when Huddlestone shoots Gallas is not active (according to the rules).....

Confused?? Yes, most fans are......

 

[goat boy]

Huddlestone shoots.
Gallas goes to put ball across face of goal leaving the goalkeeper off balance and about to dive to one side.
Gallas then missed the ball forcing the goalkeeper to readjust within milliseconds and dive the other way.


Now then, if Gallas is having an effect on the goalkeeper surely he's active?

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.

 

[Boredspur]

To be honest I'd be pretty annoyed if the goal was given against us in the same circumstances but I'd be lying if I said I knew for sure what the correct decision should be, the law has become so ambigious. He was never saving it either way though.

I don't really think City fans can moan too much about us getting decisions anyway, you had 3 very big decisions go your way in your last game against Newcastle, could have been a very different result another day.

 

[BlueMooney]

Huddlestone shoots.
Gallas goes to put ball across face of goal leaving the goalkeeper off balance and about to dive to one side.
Gallas then missed the ball forcing the goalkeeper to readjust within milliseconds and dive the other way.


Now then, if Gallas is having an effect on the goalkeeper surely he's active?

Yes this is all correct, however, the deflection off of Baird (who was outside the area) nullifies the active/inactive part of the offside ruling.... the lino flagged because he did not see the deflection..... nice to see a referee consult his assistant...

Even in the new rules, you can't be played onside by a deflection.