skrtels goal, offside?

[Skashion]

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.

I remember you. You're that guy who got narky when I was just trying to have a bit of banter with you. Shame as I was enjoying it until your post and I realised you'd taken it completely the wrong way. Oh well.

 

[fathellensbellend]

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.

so stood where he is, he is not in anyway potentially interfering, or seeking to gain an advantage, and in no way playing a part in harts decision making, and every instance like this is always given as a goal?

youre not as clever as you think you are knobhead.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

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.

I remember you. You're that guy who got narky when I was just trying to have a bit of banter with you. Shame as I was enjoying it until your post and I realised you'd taken it completely the wrong way. Oh well.

Banter? Sorry, I didn't realise that was how you meant for me to read your comments mate, BUT to be honest I believe that it's your style of writing which seems to lose something between what you want to write and what people read; and calling people morons because they don't agree with your view/interpretation of an event isn't really banter is it? You see what I mean?

 

[Skashion]

so stood where he is, he is not in anyway potentially interfering, or seeking to gain an advantage, and in no way playing a part in harts decision making, and every instance like this is always given as a goal?

youre not as clever as you think you are knobhead.

Why can't you admit you described it badly and therefore people rightly thought you were claiming he was offside from the corner?

 

[fathellensbellend]

so stood where he is, he is not in anyway potentially interfering, or seeking to gain an advantage, and in no way playing a part in harts decision making, and every instance like this is always given as a goal?

youre not as clever as you think you are knobhead.

Why can't you admit you described it badly and therefore people rightly thought you were claiming he was offside from the corner?

just answer my last question, considering you were embarressed for me not so long ago?

 

[kiam06]

We played shite and drew 2-2 let's move on because we can, unfortunately for Liverpool they are incredibly poor.

 

[tyqmvko]

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?

It does, but when Skrtel heads the ball Borini is not interfering with Hart in any way, whether that be blocking his line of sight or making contact with him. If he was stood right in front of him like when the corner was taken, then yes it would be offside.

 

[Skashion]

Banter? Sorry, I didn't realise that was how you meant for me to read your comments mate, BUT to be honest I believe that it's your style of writing which seems to lose something between what you want to write and what people read; and calling people morons because they don't agree with your view/interpretation of an event isn't really banter is it? You see what I mean?

No banter in this thread, but this was: <a class="postlink-local" href="http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=264126" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">viewtopic.php?f=1&t=264126</a> Presumably you've noted bellend calling me a patronising wanker and a knobhead. Calling him a moron in the midst of him calling me an idiot is not that harsh.

 

[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?

It does, but when Skrtel heads the ball Borini is not interfering with Hart in any way, whether that be blocking his line of sight or making contact with him. If he was stood right in front of him like when the corner was taken, then yes it would be offside.

yes, but was he seeking to gain an advantage, and did he impact harts decision making?

all least the thread is a debate now, which was always the intention and moved away from some of the clueless responses. look at the picture on the thread, bearing in mind the ball has left skrtels head, and borini has potentially moved a fraction, there surely is a chance he is seeking to gain an advantage.

 

[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..

it all boils down to whether borini was active?

It does, but when Skrtel heads the ball Borini is not interfering with Hart in any way, whether that be blocking his line of sight or making contact with him. If he was stood right in front of him like when the corner was taken, then yes it would be offside.

Perfectly put.
So the goal was legitimate.
End of thread.
I'm having a beer to celebrate.