MOTD

[pudge]

They covered everything they should and were spot on with it all. And we're talking about Lawro and Mills here!

Apart from when Mills said Gouffran was not in line with the ball

There is so much left to interpretation.

Yes he was in line with the ball but not blocking Harts vision.

He ducked, so was he interfering with play ?


imo offside should just be offside, no first phase , second phase, interfering or not, in the line of sight or not. Leaves too much room for error,

and certainly does not make the officials job any easier.

I'm not trying to get into the debate of the call, I'm just saying the fact Gouffran ducks and moves out of the way of the ball tells me he was in some way in line with it.

Contrary to the oracle that is Danny Mills

 

[Ban-jani]

Now I run the risk of seeming biased, but I'm going to look at it trying to ignore City were involved.
That for me was the correct decision and a very very good one. He was impeding play and Hart didn't dive because he was being put off by him being there.
I'm not saying either way if he would have saved it but regardless the offside attacker altered what the goalkeeper did and was going to be hit by the ball if he hadn't of moved.

 

[Inter Me Nan]

If that guy doesn't duck/move what happens to the ball?

 

[Marvin]

Can't believe not 1 word of them trying to kick us of the park.
How as Danny Mills got a job at the BBC.
"The ball wasn't in Joe Hart line of sight"
The rule is interfering,there was a player a foot away to is left,is that not interfering.
I met him and Jim Beglin in the press room away in Kiev,both buzzing that we didn't get a result,an Jim Beglin saying we could never win the league.
Now he's in the top 10 men to help us win the World Cup

It's not that clear cut. It's marginal. Interfering with play has a meaning which has been clarified. If we were on the end of that decision you'd be angry, but it shouldn't lead to Pardew's comments or used to justify the challenges we saw after the event

The offside rule was changed back in July to include the following definitions;

INTERFERING’ – what the law used to say

“interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

“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 movement or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

INTERFERING – what the law now says

“interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate.

“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 movement or challenging an opponent for the ball.

 

[oakiecokie]

Well we are getting a fair call from Danny Mills lol

Fucking waster get to fuck you bald twat (and I am bald)

Why ???? Because he has an opinion that doesn`t match yours.Therefore by your logic 50% of City fans are twats,seeing they also agreed with his thoughts on this forum earlier today.

 

[Bewar3them00n]

I notice that there wasn't a City goal in the goal of the month... Hasn't Yaya scored a few half decent free kicks? And what about Kolarov's against Liecester City ? Or Fernandinho's or Aguero's opener both against Arsenal?
Is it just me? Or having been banging them in for fun, surely 1 in contention instead of Saurez having 2....

 

[squirtyflower]

If that guy doesn't duck/move what happens to the ball?

it hits him, ergo interfering with play

 

[west didsblue]

Apart from when Mills said Gouffran was not in line with the ball

There is so much left to interpretation.

Yes he was in line with the ball but not blocking Harts vision.

He ducked, so was he interfering with play ?


imo offside should just be offside, no first phase , second phase, interfering or not, in the line of sight or not. Leaves too much room for error,

and certainly does not make the officials job any easier.

I'm not trying to get into the debate of the call, I'm just saying the fact Gouffran ducks and moves out of the way of the ball tells me he was in some way in line with it.

Contrary to the oracle that is Danny Mills

Gouffran was in line with the direction of the ball but not in line with Hart's view of it. Goal should have been given. We should have only won 2-1, although I'm sure we'd have scored more if the ref had sent Yanga-Mbiwa off as he should have done.

 

[Ban-jani]

Well we are getting a fair call from Danny Mills lol

Fucking waster get to fuck you bald twat (and I am bald)

Why ???? Because he has an opinion that doesn`t match yours.Therefore by your logic 50% of City fans are twats,seeing they also agreed with his thoughts on this forum earlier today.

It doesn't make them twats, it just makes them wrong.

 

[kippaxblue76]

If that guy doesn't duck/move what happens to the ball?

it hits him, ergo interfering with play

Exactly.