is that the mark halsey who understands the need to be impartial at all times?80s Shorts said:squirtyflower said:why did the commentator call it 'chiek tiote's wonder goal'?
it was offside, therefore not a goal
Mark Halsey said that it was 100% a goal.
Offside should just be offside.
Kris_Musampa said:Agree with others on here, the lad side stepped the ball to allow it into the goal, so he interfered with play.
On top of that, who judges who interferes with play, its as subjective as it gets, if Joes says the lad distracted him, its offside cos it interfered with Joe.
It wasn't a goal. simples.
pudge said:I think it would fall under 'interference' as that is essentially what it was.80s Shorts said:pudge said:Again, I'm just highlighting Mills' poor attempt at an excuse.
Gouffran was in line with the ball.
Imo, If he doesn't move then it hits him, offside. He moves out of the way whilst standing offside, he becomes active as he directly affects the path of the ball, offside.
That is your interpretation and maybe a fair one, but where in the rules of the game is this interpretation given credence.
There are too many grey areas.
-- Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:04 am --
squirtyflower said:no, because maybe he believes he's a free loading lying waster who knows little about being a pundit
Ha, I'm not that keen on him either.
by your own admission then he must be interfering80s Shorts said:pudge said:I think it would fall under 'interference' as that is essentially what it was.80s Shorts said:That is your interpretation and maybe a fair one, but where in the rules of the game is this interpretation given credence.
There are too many grey areas.
-- Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:04 am --
Ha, I'm not that keen on him either.
But with what was he interfering with ?
He was obviously trying to stop himself with interfering.
BigOscar said:I remember some rag player scoring an own goal last year after an offside guy infront of him left it. Fergie went mental and the papers were full of how it was an outrage and shouldn't have counted. Something like that, maybe someone with a better memory can recall it better
Well it's the same but the other way around. Both times the media claimed the referees got it wrong, despite essentially covering both sides of the decision. It just shows how the refs can't win in these situations and the media will always get on their case.80s Shorts said:BigOscar said:I remember some rag player scoring an own goal last year after an offside guy infront of him left it. Fergie went mental and the papers were full of how it was an outrage and shouldn't have counted. Something like that, maybe someone with a better memory can recall it better
Nothin to do with today though is it.
The path of the ball and the overall play.80s Shorts said:pudge said:I think it would fall under 'interference' as that is essentially what it was.80s Shorts said:That is your interpretation and maybe a fair one, but where in the rules of the game is this interpretation given credence.
There are too many grey areas.
-- Mon Jan 13, 2014 1:04 am --
Ha, I'm not that keen on him either.
But with what was he interfering with ?
He was obviously trying to stop himself with interfering.
Mraitch said:Mark Chapman quoted some of Law 11 that did not apply regarding line of site, just to try and strengthen the case against the officials. However he did not mention the section that says "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, distracts an opponent" is classed as interfering with play. Hart was distracted by Gouffran. You can clearly see Hart start to move as though he is going to dive but stops as Gouffran ducks. Gouffran's movement distracts Hart.
It annoys me when laws are not correctly quoted to strengthen a case. It happened when Vinny was sent off against United and everyone kept saying a two footed challenge was a straight red when the Laws make no mention of two footed challenges.