Match Of The Day

[lancs blue]

He was stood offside before that point so the rule would be he had gained an advantage from being in an offside position

spose so.... i'm a little confused on how they apply the rule tho, I wondered if, as it was a shot, not a pass, he was considered inactive until the ball took the deflection into his path.

If Klasnic hadn't touched the ball and it went in - as it may have done - he'd probably be ruled inactive but as soon as he touches it he's active and offside.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Watching it now.Blue cockneys and Tofees first.WTF.How was that better than our game?

Leaders usually get preference and at 3-3 I guess it was as entertaining as ours.

Disagree with the OP, MOTD is reasonably fair in its assessments most times, unlike the clowns that appear on SSN.

Well today just wasn't their day for impartiality. The CFC v EFC game was the most biased commentary I have heard this season.

And did those impartial pundits get the tape measure out for Bolton's offside goal? Rhetorical question!

And they glossed over the non-existent foul that Huddlestone gave away for Wolves' first goal.

A day of crap officiating and crappier punditry.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

spose so.... i'm a little confused on how they apply the rule tho, I wondered if, as it was a shot, not a pass, he was considered inactive until the ball took the deflection into his path.

If Klasnic hadn't touched the ball and it went in - as it may have done - he'd probably be ruled inactive but as soon as he touches it he's active and offside.

well no because if it effects the defenders actions then you are technically active, if he hadnt touched it, he would of unsighted given therefore becoming active

 

[Bluebird1]

I obviously watched a different game to the one Alan Hanson saw.

 

[lancs blue]

If Klasnic hadn't touched the ball and it went in - as it may have done - he'd probably be ruled inactive but as soon as he touches it he's active and offside.

well no because if it effects the defenders actions then you are technically active, if he hadnt touched it, he would of unsighted given therefore becoming active

I did say "probably", the active/inactive thing is in the hands of the officials - remember David Dunn a couple of seasons ago at CoMS?

 

[m27]

If Klasnic hadn't touched the ball and it went in - as it may have done - he'd probably be ruled inactive but as soon as he touches it he's active and offside.

well no because if it effects the defenders actions then you are technically active, if he hadnt touched it, he would of unsighted given therefore becoming active

Why are we complicating this? When the ball was played the goal scorer was off side. That is the end of it.

 

[Challenger1978]

If Klasnic hadn't touched the ball and it went in - as it may have done - he'd probably be ruled inactive but as soon as he touches it he's active and offside.

well no because if it effects the defenders actions then you are technically active, if he hadnt touched it, he would of unsighted given therefore becoming active

LOL so basically no matter what the **** was active.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

well no because if it effects the defenders actions then you are technically active, if he hadnt touched it, he would of unsighted given therefore becoming active

I did say "probably", the active/inactive thing is in the hands of the officials - remember David Dunn a couple of seasons ago at CoMS?

unfortunatly yes!! lol, we never get the decisions, im gonna go cry now!!

 

[jamiegrimble]

No luck for west ham dyer hitting the post sums it all up. Noble sent off. Dodgy.Sunderland Portsmouth. Kaboul getting sent off for taking his shirt off was a joke.

 

[mancityscot]

didnt even show even 1 of our goals in the end credits. everyone really does hate us dont they