Mark Clattenburg

[big gaz]

Sat on my fat one in the Cotton taking in the game after 20 mins two thing happened Dino and Lampard both got booked.

 

[Stretfordian_Blue]

A few people saying it wasn't a foul on Kompany and I can only assume these people were watching on TV- the angle doesn't show the clear push that we could see from the away end. Definite foul.

 

[remember arthur mann]

'over for the FA'

 

[Bodicoteblue]

That surely renders redundant the idea that you can be played onside by an opponent touching the ball last before you receive it?

Nasri was in an offside position as Dzeko shot, but was not interfering with play and therefore play continues. When the ball rebounds to him, he becomes offside (unless he chooses not to play the ball). So in effect "offside" is not the same as "being in an offside position".

If he was in an offside position and the opposition player "played" the ball to him, he would NOT have been offside.

Either way it is crazy, and I feel for the officials on some of these technicalities as they have just a second to make a decision.

So what is the goalie doing while coming out to block the shot? Attempting not to play the ball?

This was my thinking too.
Part and parcel of a goalkeeping is parrying shots , so in effect his parrying is surely "playing the ball" - it's not like it skimmed off a defenders head or foot , and fell kindly by accident - it is a legitimate and practised part of a goalkeeper's skills.
While it is left to the subjective view of the ref , then it gives the likes of Clattenburg plenty of opportunity to do pretty much what he likes.

 

[lust overlord]

Nasri was in an offside position as Dzeko shot, but was not interfering with play and therefore play continues. When the ball rebounds to him, he becomes offside (unless he chooses not to play the ball). So in effect "offside" is not the same as "being in an offside position".

If he was in an offside position and the opposition player "played" the ball to him, he would NOT have been offside.

Either way it is crazy, and I feel for the officials on some of these technicalities as they have just a second to make a decision.

So what is the goalie doing while coming out to block the shot? Attempting not to play the ball?

This was my thinking too.
Part and parcel of a goalkeeping is parrying shots , so in effect his parrying is surely "playing the ball" - it's not like it skimmed off a defenders head or foot , and fell kindly by accident - it is a legitimate and practised part of a goalkeeper's skills.
While it is left to the subjective view of the ref , then it gives the likes of Clattenburg plenty of opportunity to do pretty much what he likes.

I thought the linesman gave the offside call.
It was one of the few decisions he got right imo.
I was more annoyed about the blatant handball.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Nasri was in an offside position as Dzeko shot, but was not interfering with play and therefore play continues. When the ball rebounds to him, he becomes offside (unless he chooses not to play the ball). So in effect "offside" is not the same as "being in an offside position".

If he was in an offside position and the opposition player "played" the ball to him, he would NOT have been offside.

Either way it is crazy, and I feel for the officials on some of these technicalities as they have just a second to make a decision.

So what is the goalie doing while coming out to block the shot? Attempting not to play the ball?

This was my thinking too.
Part and parcel of a goalkeeping is parrying shots , so in effect his parrying is surely "playing the ball" - it's not like it skimmed off a defenders head or foot , and fell kindly by accident - it is a legitimate and practised part of a goalkeeper's skills.
While it is left to the subjective view of the ref , then it gives the likes of Clattenburg plenty of opportunity to do pretty much what he likes.

And this is probably at the root of what tees me off so much about football.
It is run and administered by people who simply have not thought their decisions through enough. People who don't think!
It's bad enough having a couple of players in your team who don't think, let alone those who create new rules for everyone else without fully exploring and understanding their consequences!

Please for the sake of all that's good, leave the non-thinking to us - we pay to be mindlessly entertained, and while we can, we don't necessarily want to have to do the thinking for you all the time, especially when there is no point as you won't listen anyway.

Ahhh, Tuesday morning.

Rant over.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

Nasri was in an offside position as Dzeko shot, but was not interfering with play and therefore play continues. When the ball rebounds to him, he becomes offside (unless he chooses not to play the ball). So in effect "offside" is not the same as "being in an offside position".

If he was in an offside position and the opposition player "played" the ball to him, he would NOT have been offside.

Either way it is crazy, and I feel for the officials on some of these technicalities as they have just a second to make a decision.

So what is the goalie doing while coming out to block the shot? Attempting not to play the ball?

This was my thinking too.
Part and parcel of a goalkeeping is parrying shots , so in effect his parrying is surely "playing the ball" - it's not like it skimmed off a defenders head or foot , and fell kindly by accident - it is a legitimate and practised part of a goalkeeper's skills.
While it is left to the subjective view of the ref , then it gives the likes of Clattenburg plenty of opportunity to do pretty much what he likes.

It's a valid point, and I'm no expert in the rules, but I'm guessing the officials have to decide whether the goalie has had a chance to control the ball and then make a second decision to play it. So if he caught the ball then rolled or threw it out it would be two actions (even if it looked like a single smooth action), whereas when he is making a save it is only one action and therefore classed as a deflection (or rebound). Possibly most officials err on the side of the defending team, which seems fair.

 

[jay_mcfc]

It was offside, get over it.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

It was offside, get over it.

Killjoy :p

 

[Bodicoteblue]

It was offside, get over it.

I don't want to be like a dog with a bone - but given the vagueness and subjectivity involved here , the decision could surely have just as easily , justifiably been given our way and the goal allowed.
But I suppose given the title of this thread , it would be an act of unreasonable optimism to have expected anything else but the decision we got.

 

[lancs blue]

It was offside, get over it.

I don't want to be like a dog with a bone - but given the vagueness and subjectivity involved here , the decision could surely have just as easily , justifiably been given our way and the goal allowed.
But I suppose given the title of this thread , it would be an act of unreasonable optimism to have expected anything else but the decision we got.

No, the goal was offside pure and simple. Under the old rule the lino would have flagged Nasri offside as soon as Dzeko struck the ball because Nasri was in the centre of goal about 8 yards out and clearly "interfering with play" in that interpretation.

The new rule allows the lino to wait for a few seconds to see if Nasri becomes "active" in the current phase of play, which he did so the lino flagged. The keeper parrying the shot is irrelevant in this case, Nasri is penalised for the original offside, he cannot be "played onside" in that phase of play.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

And that should end the thread.
Concise
Succinct
And totally correct.

 

[Citizen of Legoland]

It was offside, get over it.

I don't want to be like a dog with a bone - but given the vagueness and subjectivity involved here , the decision could surely have just as easily , justifiably been given our way and the goal allowed.
But I suppose given the title of this thread , it would be an act of unreasonable optimism to have expected anything else but the decision we got.

No, the goal was offside pure and simple. Under the old rule the lino would have flagged Nasri offside as soon as Dzeko struck the ball because Nasri was in the centre of goal about 8 yards out and clearly "interfering with play" in that interpretation.

The new rule allows the lino to wait for a few seconds to see if Nasri becomes "active" in the current phase of play, which he did so the lino flagged. The keeper parrying the shot is irrelevant in this case, Nasri is penalised for the original offside, he cannot be "played onside" in that phase of play.

I interpret the rules that if the keeper had caught the ball, then thrown or rolled the ball for Nasri to pick up and shoot, he would NOT have been offside because a new phase of play had begun and so the parry is relevant, it is the fact the ball rebounded (from the keeper's parry) that made Nasri offside.

Pure technicalities, of course.

 

[Bentheblue]

To get the thread back on topic I have just read the thread on Clattenburgh's performance in last seasons game at Anfield and find it is amazing that this guy is allowed to continue being a referee.
He is either grossly incompetent or bent, in either case he should not be refereeing.
How does he get away with it?

 

[lancs blue]

I don't want to be like a dog with a bone - but given the vagueness and subjectivity involved here , the decision could surely have just as easily , justifiably been given our way and the goal allowed.
But I suppose given the title of this thread , it would be an act of unreasonable optimism to have expected anything else but the decision we got.

No, the goal was offside pure and simple. Under the old rule the lino would have flagged Nasri offside as soon as Dzeko struck the ball because Nasri was in the centre of goal about 8 yards out and clearly "interfering with play" in that interpretation.

The new rule allows the lino to wait for a few seconds to see if Nasri becomes "active" in the current phase of play, which he did so the lino flagged. The keeper parrying the shot is irrelevant in this case, Nasri is penalised for the original offside, he cannot be "played onside" in that phase of play.

I interpret the rules that if the keeper had caught the ball, then thrown or rolled the ball for Nasri to pick up and shoot, he would NOT have been offside because a new phase of play had begun and so the parry is relevant, it is the fact the ball rebounded (from the keeper's parry) that made Nasri offside.

Pure technicalities, of course.

Yes that's right, by "irrelevant" I was referring to previous posters who claimed the parry played Nasri onside.

 

[Helmet Cole]

Mmmm.....

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

He's a ****.

 

[Helmet Cole]

He's a ****.

I think you'll find he's actually a cheating **** tbf.

 

[Goater=Legend]

Another cheat from the FA

 

[MadchesterCity]

.