skrtels goal, offside?

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

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.

not quite, was he 100% not seeking to gain an advantage.

Not having access to the thought processes and motivations inside Borini's head at the time,and not being a trained neuropsychologist,it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty.
But I think the last six pages have been fascinating.
In fact I can't wait until someone scores against us,and we can do it all again.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

look at the picture on the thread, bearing in mind the ball has left skrtels head, and borini has potentially moved a fraction,

Only way to solve it is another pic of skrtel just before he heads the ball,see where borini is then...

I can relate to your argument mate but think you are wrong...

It would make no difference as to where Borini was before Skrtel headed it as you cant be offside from a corner. The moment Skrtel touched it Borini would have been called offside and the goal disallowed if he was interfering with the play. As Skash has already proven with the picture, he had no player around him, and was not involved with the goal, therefore the goal was allowed and is right.

It's pretty simple really, it just seems the OP is clutching at straws and digging a deeper hole trying to get out.

I never mentioned offside..
If borini had been stood in front of hart blocking or obstructing his view, the goal wouldnt have been given..
Thats the only arument i'm giving ..

 

[Skashion]

Fair Play.

Still reckon your tone is sometimes a bit too authoritarian for what is generally just an opinion on a subject matter. No worries though, I'm not trying to make enemies here, just attempting to calm some of the waves.

I know that my tone is abrasive, unnecessarily so quite often, you are right - or is that too authoritarian a statement? It is especially so with posters who I've never gotten on with. The OP is one of those posters.

 

[Feed-The-Goat]

Only way to solve it is another pic of skrtel just before he heads the ball,see where borini is then...

I can relate to your argument mate but think you are wrong...

It would make no difference as to where Borini was before Skrtel headed it as you cant be offside from a corner. The moment Skrtel touched it Borini would have been called offside and the goal disallowed if he was interfering with the play. As Skash has already proven with the picture, he had no player around him, and was not involved with the goal, therefore the goal was allowed and is right.

It's pretty simple really, it just seems the OP is clutching at straws and digging a deeper hole trying to get out.

and thats the arguement, by being where he was, was borini seeking to gain an advantage, by being beyond the last man, near the goal, it could be argued he was, and are ALL goals given in this instance, it could be argued not.

If Hart were to have stopped the header and it bounced back out then yeah he would have an advantage, but the linesman then would have flagged for offside, or well hopefully he would in that situation.

The only time he would have been active in that situation is if Hart were to have saved it, or the ball went near him and he looked to have played it.

The offside rule is wank though, that's a certainty.<br /><br />-- Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:06 pm --<br /><br />

Only way to solve it is another pic of skrtel just before he heads the ball,see where borini is then...

I can relate to your argument mate but think you are wrong...

It would make no difference as to where Borini was before Skrtel headed it as you cant be offside from a corner. The moment Skrtel touched it Borini would have been called offside and the goal disallowed if he was interfering with the play. As Skash has already proven with the picture, he had no player around him, and was not involved with the goal, therefore the goal was allowed and is right.

It's pretty simple really, it just seems the OP is clutching at straws and digging a deeper hole trying to get out.

I never mentioned offside..
If borini had been stood in front of hart blocking or obstructing his view, the goal wouldnt have been given..
Thats the only arument i'm giving ..

I know mate, it would have been disallowed in that circumstance, my point was to the OP.

 

[Skashion]

Not having access to the thought processes and motivations inside Borini's head at the time,and not being a trained neuropsychologist,it is impossible to say with any degree of certainty.
But I think the last six pages have been fascinating.
In fact I can't wait until someone scores against us,and we can do it all again.

The interpretation of gaining an advantage is clear:

“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position

As the ball went in, it's completely irrelevant.

The only factor is did Skrtel block Hart's vision. I can't see a case for that given the picture I've posted.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

It would make no difference as to where Borini was before Skrtel headed it as you cant be offside from a corner. The moment Skrtel touched it Borini would have been called offside and the goal disallowed if he was interfering with the play. As Skash has already proven with the picture, he had no player around him, and was not involved with the goal, therefore the goal was allowed and is right.

It's pretty simple really, it just seems the OP is clutching at straws and digging a deeper hole trying to get out.

and thats the arguement, by being where he was, was borini seeking to gain an advantage, by being beyond the last man, near the goal, it could be argued he was, and are ALL goals given in this instance, it could be argued not.

If Hart were to have stopped the header and it bounced back out then yeah he would have an advantage, but the linesman then would have flagged for offside, or well hopefully he would in that situation.

The only time he would have been active in that situation is if Hart were to have saved it, or the ball went near him and he looked to have played it.

The offside rule is wank though, that's a certainty.

-- Mon Aug 27, 2012 2:06 pm --

It would make no difference as to where Borini was before Skrtel headed it as you cant be offside from a corner. The moment Skrtel touched it Borini would have been called offside and the goal disallowed if he was interfering with the play. As Skash has already proven with the picture, he had no player around him, and was not involved with the goal, therefore the goal was allowed and is right.

It's pretty simple really, it just seems the OP is clutching at straws and digging a deeper hole trying to get out.

I never mentioned offside..
If borini had been stood in front of hart blocking or obstructing his view, the goal wouldnt have been given..
Thats the only arument i'm giving ..

I know mate, it would have been disallowed in that circumstance, my point was to the OP.

No worries..
Yes the op is wrong on that scenario as i have pointed out to him,and many others have.

 

[Nebuchadnezzar]

We could debate until the cows come home, but the fact remains that they will never go back and change it. I for one thought it was legitimate enough, but each to their own.

 

[lita69]

Probably a legitimate goal however I can see a scenario where that happens against the rags and it's ruled offside. I can also imagine the media backing them up as they usually do. Good thing is you don't hear our staff complaining about things like this like others do, we have too much class and just get on with things.

 

[nijinsky's fetlocks]

Probably a legitimate goal however I can see a scenario where that happens against the rags and it's ruled offside. I can also imagine the media backing them up as they usually do. Good thing is you don't hear our staff complaining about things like this like others do, we have too much class and just get on with things.

...apart from seven page post mortems on Bluemoon.

 

[lita69]

Probably a legitimate goal however I can see a scenario where that happens against the rags and it's ruled offside. I can also imagine the media backing them up as they usually do. Good thing is you don't hear our staff complaining about things like this like others do, we have too much class and just get on with things.

...apart from seven page post mortems on Bluemoon.

I smell something suspicious :)

We're just chatting about it mate, not making an issue of it like certain others we know would.