The Stones Goal

[BerkshireBlue]

I think we should all just calm down and wait for @bridgeno1 to tell us what’s what.

Because he knows everything about football.

Apart from what feels like to win major trophies

 

[SebastianBlue]

1 I said he wasnt offside ie there is no need to discuss offside which is what posters had been commenting on. It's very straightforward that he wasn't in the line of sight of the keeper. Its a non discussion.

2 I said the goal should stand.

Im not sure what you are arguing with me about.

BTW he did back in but I don't feel that was enough to disallow the goal like I said.

I am not arguing, I just didn’t understand your earlier posts given the context of the thread. But perhaps I just misunderstood the main thrust of your comments.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Silva backs into him let's not get silly here, anyhow the keeper is big enough to deal with any such minimal contact. These kinds of actions happen on every corner. It's a decision based on discretion and in this case the goal should stand.

There really isn't any need to discuss offside or pretend that Silva wasn't being obstructive because that was the exact reason he was stood there.

I don't really disagree with the substance of anything you're saying except to say I think "backing in" suggests moving into the path of the keeper to block him, which I really don't think Silva does, he just shifts his body position. He doesn't really move at all, you can see from the images he just occupies the same space until Sá pushes him out of the way. He does "brace" in place to make a nuisance of himself, but I don't think that's the same as pushing backwards into the keeper.

I think it's all slightly academic anyway, for the reasons you state, this sort of contact happens ten times every corner so not even worth considering as a foul.

 

[Gorton_Tubster]

This was ok, the one after, and the one after that.. Celebrated even.

The offside doesnt even come into question.

 

[hilts]

It’s irrelevant anyway because the contact was so minimal it’s not going to get given in England.

But what little contact Silva did make with the ‘keeper was before the corner was taken, so it couldn’t possibly have been penalised anyway.

God this is hard work

1 I said the goal should stand

2 Silva backed in as the corner was being taken, if a keeper is for example thrown to the ground while a corner is about to be taken or after its taken 2 things happen, a retake or a foul is given so it is possible fo be penalised before a ball is kicked.

 

[hilts]

I don't really disagree with the substance of anything you're saying except to say I think "backing in" suggests moving into the path of the keeper to block him, which I really don't think Silva does, he just shifts his body position. He doesn't really move at all, you can see from the images he just occupies the same space until Sá pushes him out of the way. He does "brace" in place to make a nuisance of himself, but I don't think that's the same as pushing backwards into the keeper.

I think it's all slightly academic anyway, for the reasons you state, this sort of contact happens ten times every corner so not even worth considering as a foul.

From the view I saw he stepped back but like you said it's irrelevant anyhow. The ederson one against arsenal is where the line is for me and that can bring different valid views.

 

[blueste41]

Separate from any analysis of the match and to get ahead of any 'it wasn't a goal' nonsense.

I've got to add a thread after the Micah Richards and Daniel Sturridge nonsense. It's a goal isn't it?

What Bernardo does before Stones heads the ball is irrelevant because he's onside when the corner is taken.

When Stones heads it he's completely ducked out of the way, nowhere near interfering with Sa. Obvious goal.

Regarding the officials, the linesman is right to stick his flag up from his angle, I think the referee should have overruled him on field, people are saying he did? But I'm not sure he actually did. Shouldn't need the monitor but well done to him and VAR for getting the right decision.

I'll add a poll but surely it's unanimous?

Unanimous by City fans, Arsenal/Liverpool fans or neutral fans? It's a subjective opinion so I'm sure none of those groups would provide a unanimous decision either way.
Fortunately the only persons view that matters is that of the on field decision, he gave the goal I suggest we just leave it there and move on.

 

[hilts]

I am not arguing, I just didn’t understand your earlier posts given the context of the thread. But perhaps I just misunderstood the main thrust of your comments.

I may have worded it badly but the gist

I came into the thread presuming the discussion would be about the contact between Silva and the goalie but most were on about the 'offside' or not decision. This seems odd because he wasn't offside and it wasn't given. It's not even a debating point, the commentator said he wasnt offside, the pundits said he wasn't offside. The discussion on the TV within seconds was Silva impeding the keeper. And that was what dumb and dumber(Richards and Sturridge) were blabbing about.

 

[hilts]

THIS was interfering.

View attachment 135621

No shit sherlock i:-)

 

[SebastianBlue]

I may have worded it badly but the gist

I came into the thread presuming the discussion would be about the contact between Silva and the goalie but most were on about the 'offside' or not decision. This seems odd because he wasn't offside and it wasn't given. It's not even a debating point, the commentator said he wasnt offside, the pundits said he wasn't offside. The discussion on the TV within seconds was Silva impeding the keeper. And that was what dumb and dumber(Richards and Sturridge) were blabbing about.

Fair enough, I did misunderstand.

We agree, then. ;-)