They were both onside for the shot that hit the post.
No they weren't.
Half of Havertz's body and one leg is ahead of the ball, so he's offside.
This isn't even a complicated offside decision.
They were both onside for the shot that hit the post.
Didn't they pay something like 40 million pounds for him?Gakpo doesn’t just look like Dele Ali, he plays as shit as him too.
Oliver for the Dippers is the same as Webb for the Rags. Clearly in Red tops pocketsA fucking tackle like that with no card - seriously !!
Oliver is such a twat
Yep, Graham Potter was definitely interfering. Numerous camera angles proved it.100% iron clad, no doubt about it, no controversy offside.
No, Havertz was in front of the ballI'm not watching the game. This off BBC rag/dipper site:
Posted at 12:4312:43
Get Involved
Tweet using #bbcfootball, text 81111 (UK only – standard message rates apply)
Mike: If Havertz was behind Silva when he hit how can Havertz be offside?
Matt: Commentators and officials don’t know the offside rule!! Havertz was behind the ball when Silva kicked it!
Mike: Defies belief that we have VAR and the official in charge of the review still calls it wrongly. As the ball was played, no part of any Chelsea player was offside, and Havertz who scored was behind the ball when it was played on to the post. Utter incompetence for me.
Is this true?
Yes. I don’t even know what he is. He plays aimlessly.Didn't they pay something like 40 million pounds for him?
CheersNo, Havertz was in front of the ball
Is it possible for Gakpo to be even worse than Dele Ali?Gakpo doesn’t just look like Dele Ali, he plays as shit as him too.