skrtels goal, offside?

[80s Shorts]

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.

Ha ha I can't believe you had to explain you meant after skirtel headed it back towards goal.
I knew you didn't mean offside direct from the corner, that is surely fucking obvious if you have an understanding of the game.
I haven't watched it again so can't comment but fair play for clocking it mate,just can't believe you had to spell and pronounce the fucking obvious to some of our fans. Ha ha !!
GOOD LUCK

It was obvious what the OP meant. A possible offside from the header, not the bloody corner. Cant believe it was interpreted any other way. Strange.

 

[Skashion]

It was obvious what the OP meant. A possible offside from the header, not the bloody corner. Cant believe it was interpreted any other way. Strange.

Apart from the fact that the OP said Hart's toes were being stood on which wasn't happening when he claims it did - hence the confusion.

Are Joe Hart's toes being stood on here? Is his view being blocked here, fractions of a second before Skrtel's header?

If you think so, you're blind. If no, then the OP self-evidently came out with a description which confused not one but several posters.

 

[fathellensbellend]

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.

Ha ha I can't believe you had to explain you meant after skirtel headed it back towards goal.
I knew you didn't mean offside direct from the corner, that is surely fucking obvious if you have an understanding of the game.
I haven't watched it again so can't comment but fair play for clocking it mate,just can't believe you had to spell and pronounce the fucking obvious to some of our fans. Ha ha !!
GOOD LUCK

no worries mate, i just thought it may be a talking point from the game, i didnt definitively say the goal was offside, thus the question mark in the title, my thoughts was borini being very cute standing where he was, and was their there a chance that he was seeking to gain an advantage or had he in any way hampered harts though process.<br /><br />-- Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:44 am --<br /><br />

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.

Ha ha I can't believe you had to explain you meant after skirtel headed it back towards goal.
I knew you didn't mean offside direct from the corner, that is surely fucking obvious if you have an understanding of the game.
I haven't watched it again so can't comment but fair play for clocking it mate,just can't believe you had to spell and pronounce the fucking obvious to some of our fans. Ha ha !!
GOOD LUCK

It was obvious what the OP meant. A possible offside from the header, not the bloody corner. Cant believe it was interpreted any other way. Strange.

i know it was obvious, to be honest i feel painfully embarressed for them.

 

[Skashion]

i know it was obvious, to be honest i feel painfully embarressed for them.

When Skrtel heads the ball, Bolini is nowhere near Hart's toes i.e. standing in front on him and obstructing his view, rendering any point you may have had null and void. What you described, Bolini positioned directly in front of Hart, happened before Skrtel headed it and so couldn't be offside, Now, I accept you made a mistake in your description and weren't being as stupid as I and others initially thought, but nonetheless, it is your false description of the event* which led to it. Your refusal to accept this, is now what's painfully embarrassing.

*I presume you've now dropped your claim that his vision was being obstructed as the screenshot I've posted would render your eyesight painfully embarrassing if you continued to argue that.

 

[Eggsy]

Just a bullet header the point should be why was Kolorov marking him???

Or why Zabba also didn't challenge either.

 

[bernabias home shirt]

i know it was obvious, to be honest i feel painfully embarressed for them.

When Skrtel heads the ball, Bolini is nowhere near Hart's toes i.e. standing in front on him and obstructing his view, rendering any point you may have had null and void. What you described, Bolini positioned directly in front of Hart, happened before Skrtel headed it and so couldn't be offside, Now, I accept you made a mistake in your description and weren't being as stupid as I and others initially thought, but nonetheless, it is your false description of the event* which led to it. Your refusal to accept this, is now what's painfully embarrassing.

*I presume you've now dropped your claim that his vision was being obstructed as the screenshot I've posted would render your eyesight painfully embarrassing if you continued to argue that.

The only way to prove it 100% is get a clip of it as skrtel is just about to head it,then it will clear everything up. .

 

[Dogtanian]

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.

Ha ha I can't believe you had to explain you meant after skirtel headed it back towards goal.
I knew you didn't mean offside direct from the corner, that is surely fucking obvious if you have an understanding of the game.
I haven't watched it again so can't comment but fair play for clocking it mate,just can't believe you had to spell and pronounce the fucking obvious to some of our fans. Ha ha !!
GOOD LUCK

no worries mate, i just thought it may be a talking point from the game, i didnt definitively say the goal was offside, thus the question mark in the title, my thoughts was borini being very cute standing where he was, and was their there a chance that he was seeking to gain an advantage or had he in any way hampered harts though process.

-- Tue Aug 28, 2012 4:44 am --

Ha ha I can't believe you had to explain you meant after skirtel headed it back towards goal.
I knew you didn't mean offside direct from the corner, that is surely fucking obvious if you have an understanding of the game.
I haven't watched it again so can't comment but fair play for clocking it mate,just can't believe you had to spell and pronounce the fucking obvious to some of our fans. Ha ha !!
GOOD LUCK

It was obvious what the OP meant. A possible offside from the header, not the bloody corner. Cant believe it was interpreted any other way. Strange.

i know it was obvious, to be honest i feel painfully embarressed for them.

Yeah they round on members for no reason really. every forum has knobheads

 

[St Ives blue]

i know it was obvious, to be honest i feel painfully embarressed for them.

When Skrtel heads the ball, Bolini is nowhere near Hart's toes i.e. standing in front on him and obstructing his view, rendering any point you may have had null and void. What you described, Bolini positioned directly in front of Hart, happened before Skrtel headed it and so couldn't be offside, Now, I accept you made a mistake in your description and weren't being as stupid as I and others initially thought, but nonetheless, it is your false description of the event* which led to it. Your refusal to accept this, is now what's painfully embarrassing.

*I presume you've now dropped your claim that his vision was being obstructed as the screenshot I've posted would render your eyesight painfully embarrassing if you continued to argue that.

There's only one person I'm embarrassed for here, and it's not the OP!!

 

[fathellensbellend]

i know it was obvious, to be honest i feel painfully embarressed for them.

When Skrtel heads the ball, Bolini is nowhere near Hart's toes i.e. standing in front on him and obstructing his view, rendering any point you may have had null and void. What you described, Bolini positioned directly in front of Hart, happened before Skrtel headed it and so couldn't be offside, Now, I accept you made a mistake in your description and weren't being as stupid as I and others initially thought, but nonetheless, it is your false description of the event* which led to it. Your refusal to accept this, is now what's painfully embarrassing.

*I presume you've now dropped your claim that his vision was being obstructed as the screenshot I've posted would render your eyesight painfully embarrassing if you continued to argue that.

where did i say he was obstructing his view?, just his very positioning was where my arguement lie, and by being where he was may just have played a part in harts decision making. It was a thread about the nuances of the offside law, and in "some instances" the flag could and has been raised, some articulate posters have recognised this, and others have not.

 

[Skashion]

The only way to prove it 100% is get a clip of it as skrtel is just about to head it,then it will clear everything up. .

That is what my screenshot is. It's probably less than a couple of tenths of a second before the header and Bolini is not in front of Hart.