Spurs goal

[Challenger1978]

2:40

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LLJMymqHlc[/youtube]

I've not seen this mentioned anywhere so sorry if its a double post. Am I the only one though that thinks spurs goal shouldn't of stood ?

As Defoe clearly holds Hart back at the beginning of play and then deliberately makes himself as big as possible and only moves out of the way at the last second as the ball is going to hit him.

 

[i8rags]

Under the rules as long as he does not touch the ball it should stand, but I'm with you goal and laws are a joke.

 

[The Pink Panther]

I thought it shouldn't have been allowed because Defoe was in front of Hart clearly in an offside position
I also believe that Silva should have been awarded a penalty when Nasri lifted the ball over the spurs defence. Silva ran on to it and Ekotto had his arms in his back pushing him off balance. Silva was far too honest there, but IMHO it was still a penalty

 

[hoyage]

The offside rule is a joke now all this active inactive stuff. If you on a football pitch the your active as far as i am concerned and if your not active then you don't deserve to be on the pitch.

 

[Aguero is my king]

Under the rules as long as he does not touch the ball it should stand, but I'm with you goal and laws are a joke.

The rules are interfere with play, he doesn't have to touch the ball to interfere with play.

I'm 50-50 on it if I'm honest. Certainly questionable but if it was the other way round I'd say it should have stood.

 

[Corky]

It was offside.

"interfering with an opponent".

You don't have to touch it.

Every free kick in the box went our way after this.

 

[The Pink Panther]

Under the rules as long as he does not touch the ball it should stand, but I'm with you goal and laws are a joke.

I thought it was all about being active. What if the ball had passed through Defoe's legs and he hadn't touched the ball?
If Defoe was stood away from the keeper and not in his eye line, never mind just having finished a tug of war, then I wouldn't have any objection the the goal standing

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

I thought it was a penalty.

There was a clear shove in the back by Hart on Defoe.

 

[SWP's back]

Under the rules as long as he does not touch the ball it should stand, but I'm with you goal and laws are a joke.

That's not what the law states at all.

 

[Challenger1978]

Under the rules as long as he does not touch the ball it should stand, but I'm with you goal and laws are a joke.

Thats what I'm not sure about though under the rules (inactive active shit). Even if someone doesn't touch the ball if they're physically in the way of the keeper or deliberately obscuring the view they're active.

 

[BETTER-DEAD-THAN-RED]

I thought it shouldn't have been allowed because Defoe was in front of Hart clearly in an offside position
I also believe that Silva should have been awarded a penalty when Nasri lifted the ball over the spurs defence. Silva ran on to it and Ekotto had his arms in his back pushing him off balance. Silva was far too honest there, but IMHO it was still a penalty

what he said

 

[Skashion]

Should have stood. I don't think he was interfering with Hart. Hart could see it all the way and he wasn't impeded from getting a hand to it by him being there as he was a couple of feet in front and just to the right. He was just beaten by a decent header which came about as a result of our defence having a lapse of concentration - as often happens when you're mauling a side, you concede goals you wouldn't if that goal meant a difference between three points or one.

 

[bluestevei]

2:40

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LLJMymqHlc[/youtube]

I've not seen this mentioned anywhere so sorry if its a double post. Am I the only one though that thinks spurs goal shouldn't of stood ?

As Defoe clearly holds Hart back at the beginning of play and then deliberately makes himself as big as possible and only moves out of the way at the last second as the ball is going to hit him.

it should of been offside, how the hell wasnt defoe interfering with the play, not 1 city player was anywhere near him, bent ref and linesman

 

[SWP's back]

Under the rules as long as he does not touch the ball it should stand, but I'm with you goal and laws are a joke.

Thats what I'm not sure about though under the rules (inactive active shit). Even if someone doesn't touch the ball if they're physically in the way of the keeper or deliberately obscuring the view they're active.

True. It's nothing to do with having to touch the ball.

 

[quiet_riot]

Said this at the time. Clearly interfering with play, 'active' or whatever you want to call it, he impeded Hart's view.

Still, the law is subjective, and while it is, it is open to poor decisions like that one and the one a couple of seasons back against Blackburn.

 

[SWP's back]

Should have stood. I don't think he was interfering with Hart. Hart could see it all the way and he wasn't impeded from getting a hand to it by him being there as he was a couple of feet in front and just to the right. He was just beaten by a decent header which came about as a result of our defence having a lapse of concentration - as often happens when you're mauling a side, you concede goals you wouldn't if that goal meant a difference between three points or one.

Incorrect I'm afraid. Hart was impeded from being able to collect the cross making Defoe active.

 

[Aguero is my king]

Said this at the time. Clearly interfering with play, 'active' or whatever you want to call it, he impeded Hart's view.

Still, the law is subjective, and while it is, it is open to poor decisions like that one and the one a couple of seasons back against Blackburn.

I'm not sure it is as clear as you make it. When the corner comes in he is interfering, but at that point he is not in an offside position. When Kaboul heads the ball if you watch the video closely he is now out of the way and not impeding Harts view. The only questionable thing is whether he distracted Hart by being stood there which would make him active.

 

[tyqmvko]

Had he not backed up into Hart then I'd say it was a goal, as he wasn't actually blocking Hart's view. But since he actually moved into Hart I'd say that he put Joe off so should be offside.

 

[Corky]

Should have stood. I don't think he was interfering with Hart. Hart could see it all the way and he wasn't impeded from getting a hand to it by him being there as he was a couple of feet in front and just to the right. He was just beaten by a decent header which came about as a result of our defence having a lapse of concentration - as often happens when you're mauling a side, you concede goals you wouldn't if that goal meant a difference between three points or one.

Defore dummies it, Hart can't move until it passes Defoe.

Newcastle did a similar trick with Nolan when he blocked Hart. It isn't accidental.

 

[Challenger1978]

Said this at the time. Clearly interfering with play, 'active' or whatever you want to call it, he impeded Hart's view.

Still, the law is subjective, and while it is, it is open to poor decisions like that one and the one a couple of seasons back against Blackburn.

I said something similar to a mate at the same time. In fact I said something along the lines of that the goal was offside but the ref only allowed it to stand because we were hammering them (sympathy goal). lol worse thing is though I wasn't to arsed at the time as I thought there was no way them red bastard would get +6 against Arsenal.