jimharri
Moderator
1 vote out of 267 for the "no" option. Hardly a surprise!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Stones Goal
- Thread starter MCFC1993
- Start date
What Rodri handball? The one where Richarlison was offside prior to Rodri getting possession?I think it was right decision and well done to ref. Either way, if we win the league by 1 point it will make a great t-shirt with the rodri 'hand ball' on back and just for fun stick the goal line technology view of stones clearence off the line a few seasons back as well
jimharri
Moderator
Your first contribution in 3 weeks, and it's to say that the goal shouldn't have been allowed. Riiiiight.Im not a fan of players obstructing keepers, but it happens in almost every game. Gabriel’s goal against us should have been disallowed also. So fuck it x
dublinblue12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 3,648
Yeah but it still hurts themWhat Rodri handball? The one where Richarlison was offside prior to Rodri getting possession?
Silva can not be offside from the corner, Only when John Stones heads the ball is offside, But clearly not interfering with the keeper's line of sight when John Stones header wins the game for City, Forget he's fouled the keeper, Silva has every right to defend his space and does not hold or push the keeper, GOAL
Say what you like about City being poor today and lucky, We scored before the final whistle and won the game that's football for you, Score more than your opponents and it wins you the game
Say what you like about City being poor today and lucky, We scored before the final whistle and won the game that's football for you, Score more than your opponents and it wins you the game
jaiguruKun
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 3 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 5,864
It definitely wasn't interfering when Stones heads the ball. It's clear from the camera angle facing the goal.
It's only people who don't understand that a player cannot be offside drom a corner who are trying to argue otherwise.
It's only people who don't understand that a player cannot be offside drom a corner who are trying to argue otherwise.
The blue phantom
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 26 Aug 2015
- Messages
- 8,799
What do you reckon that vote would of been if Wolves had scored the exact same goal. Fwiw I think it was a goal but I'll guarantee you we'd be playing fuck on here had it been given against us1 vote out of 267 for the "no" option. Hardly a surprise!
meltonblue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 14 May 2013
- Messages
- 7,097
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.
They were talking about in the context of whether it was offside or not to be fair, they were being even dumber than you think!
TFC
Well-Known Member
Course it's a goal ffs. There should be no debate whatsoever about it.
jimharri
Moderator
Of course. Football fans are blinded by bias when it comes to their own club. It's always been the way. 95% would argue that it shouldn't be given, the other 5% are more level headed. I just find it strange that a lone supposed City fan is so out of step with the common consensus on here. Are they all wrong, and he right?What do you reckon that vote would of been if Wolves had scored the exact same goal. Fwiw I think it was a goal but I'll guarantee you we'd be playing fuck on here had it been given against us