skrtels goal, offside?

[fathellensbellend]

Borini wasn't interfering with Hart when Skrtel headed the ball so no, it wasn't offside. If it was then many goals would be considered offside..

it all boils down to whether borini was active?

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Borini wasn't interfering with Hart when Skrtel headed the ball so no, it wasn't offside. If it was then many goals would be considered offside..

Can we not just get every referee and linesman in the Premiership to agree that such goals are only deemed offside when they are scored against us?

 

[fathellensbellend]

its not a moan, its a genuine question, that some on here were happy to mock but in truth are not as clever as they first thought they were.

I wasn't mocking you. I was embarrassed for you. From what you said in the OP I was right to interpret what you said as arguing Borini was offside when Gerrard took it. Borini was not in front of Hart when Skrtel headed it. You weren't clear in your OP and you're still making an extremely tenuous argument now. The goal was perfectly fine.

i falsely presumed the people would have the knowledge to realise offside could only occur when the ball went forward, i didnt realise i was dealing with idiots. cut to the chase was borini potentially active when skrtel headed it, or seeking to gain an advantage, you couldnt 100% say no to either of those points, so there is definately a chance that the flag could have been raised, and i agree it is slightly clutching at straws, and thats why the title had a question mark against it.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Was Wigan's first "GOAL" against Trafford Scum in their game at the end of last season disallowed for offside (second phase after the corner), or was it for a foul on DeHomo? The rules are pretty clear, but the interpretation is a pretty gray area, which isn't helped by the match officials' unwillingness to make any comments to the media to explain their interpretation of the law which led to the decision.

I realise my comment's not really relevant, but it seemed like a good time to highlight the fact ...(to some people on here)... that these things sometimes happen in games and sometimes they don't and as a result we are often left scratching our heads as to why/why not(?)

Bit of uniformity would be nice wouldn't it.

 

[Ray78]

Nope he wasn't offside, it was poor marking and good strength by Skrtel.

 

[Skashion]

i falsely presumed the people would have the knowledge to realise offside could only occur when the ball went forward, i didnt realise i was dealing with idiots. cut to the chase was borini potentially active when skrtel headed it, or seeking to gain an advantage, you couldnt 100% say no to either of those points, so there is definately a chance that the flag could have been raised, and i agree it is slightly clutching at straws, and thats why the title had a question mark against it.

You're not dealing with idiots. You said Borini was standing on Hart's toes. This only happened before Skrtel headed the ball. It was your error, not mine, you moron. That is unless you're trying to claim this is standing on his toes:

He's not blocking his view in any way. It's a goal.

 

[fathellensbellend]

Was Wigan's first "GOAL" against Trafford Scum in their game at the end of last season disallowed for offside (second phase after the corner), or was it for a foul on DeHomo? The rules are pretty clear, but the interpretation is a pretty gray area, which isn't helped by the match officials' unwillingness to make any comments to the media to explain their interpretation of the law which led to the decision.

I realise my comment's not really relevant, but it seemed like a good time to highlight the fact ...(to some people on here)... that these things sometimes happen in games and sometimes they don't and as a result we are often left scratching our heads as to why/why not(?)

Bit of uniformity would be nice wouldn't it.

exactly right

 

[Skashion]

Was Wigan's first "GOAL" against Trafford Scum in their game at the end of last season disallowed for offside (second phase after the corner), or was it for a foul on DeHomo? The rules are pretty clear, but the interpretation is a pretty gray area, which isn't helped by the match officials' unwillingness to make any comments to the media to explain their interpretation of the law which led to the decision.

I realise my comment's not really relevant, but it seemed like a good time to highlight the fact ...(to some people on here)... that these things sometimes happen in games and sometimes they don't and as a result we are often left scratching our heads as to why/why not(?)

Bit of uniformity would be nice wouldn't it.

Foul, disgraceful decision though it was.

 

[Bill]

And Rodders free kick was not a free kick and the grass was too green and the ball was too round.

We got handed our arses on a silver platter by a very good pool performance helped along by a woeful display of passing by the blues. We got lucky guys lets move on eh!

we didn't deserve to win but we wern't woeful either. they were lucky yesterday all round especially with the non free kick.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

i falsely presumed the people would have the knowledge to realise offside could only occur when the ball went forward, i didnt realise i was dealing with idiots. cut to the chase was borini potentially active when skrtel headed it, or seeking to gain an advantage, you couldnt 100% say no to either of those points, so there is definately a chance that the flag could have been raised, and i agree it is slightly clutching at straws, and thats why the title had a question mark against it.

You're not dealing with idiots. You said Borini was standing on Hart's toes. This only happened before Skrtel headed the ball. It was your error, not mine, you moron. That is unless you're trying to claim this is standing on his toes:

He's not blocking his view in any way. It's a goal.

WOWZERS! Have you ever thought of a career as a teacher? Your patience and ability to stay calm whilst explaining things to people is exemplary. You must be so proud of yourself.

-- Mon Aug 27, 2012 12:34 pm --

Was Wigan's first "GOAL" against Trafford Scum in their game at the end of last season disallowed for offside (second phase after the corner), or was it for a foul on DeHomo? The rules are pretty clear, but the interpretation is a pretty gray area, which isn't helped by the match officials' unwillingness to make any comments to the media to explain their interpretation of the law which led to the decision.

I realise my comment's not really relevant, but it seemed like a good time to highlight the fact ...(to some people on here)... that these things sometimes happen in games and sometimes they don't and as a result we are often left scratching our heads as to why/why not(?)

Bit of uniformity would be nice wouldn't it.

Foul, disgraceful decision though it was.

"Linesman's flag" or "media explanation"?