I have to say, my immediate impression was it was a bollocks decision.
Having seen it a few more times, it's still a bollocks decision.
Having seen it a few more times, it's still a bollocks decision.
Off Topic The Burly Arms
- Thread starter Spurlock
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
He was beyond the ball and didn't interfere with the keeper nor the defender who Gabbiadini got the better of.
We can add football to the long list of things you know **** all about
If Gabbiadini doesn't get to the ball and it comes to Bertrand he's offside, but it didn't, so he wasn't, learn the rules mate
TBF you can be interfering with play without the ball coming to you.
He was running into the box because he dying for a piss and on his way to the dressing room. That's obvious to everyone, including all the United defenders and goalkeeper.
Had Gabbiadini not got to the ball just that split second before him he would have jumped over the ball as he had absolutely no intention whatsoever of touching it.
Obvs
Had Gabbiadini not got to the ball just that split second before him he would have jumped over the ball as he had absolutely no intention whatsoever of touching it.
Obvs
Try again Tiny Tim.
Another thing you obviously know nothing about
You must log in or register to see images
Thanks for proving my point sad act, the ball never arrived at his feet you clown and in no way is De Gea focussing on him. So he's not interfering with play you docile donk
Only if you're in the keepers line of sight or have had some actual impact on the play.
Bertrand did neither
Are you seriously trying to tell me that Bertrand wouldn't have buried it if the ball had reached him?
He clearly had every intention of scoring if he got the chance, the fact he miss timed his run and got into an offside position is his and Southampton's tough ****.
Of course he would and if the ball had gone to him he'd have been offside, but it didn't as a clearly ONSIDE player had already stuffed it into the back of the onion sack
The linesman could have only flagged him offside if the ball came to him, it's the rules, simple as.
This is the rule...
Interfering with an opponent If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside.
Now, according to that, the official would have had to believe that De Gea was distracted by Bertrand's presence.
I'd say that's dubious, at best, but its obviously subjective.
Interfering with an opponent If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside.
Now, according to that, the official would have had to believe that De Gea was distracted by Bertrand's presence.
I'd say that's dubious, at best, but its obviously subjective.
Yeh that's how I see it... particularly the bit I've underlined
That's the whole subjective point, was he though?
From the pic Kustard posted, it appears not...
I never go by pictures. In real time, I think the official could easily have given it either way and both sides would've felt aggrieved. Personally I look at the movement of Valencia towards Bertrand, not just De Gea. That's my subjective view.
There's no argument that the 'goal scorer' was onside. Did Bertrand distract De Gea, who I would assume the lino was looking at?
I'd say had Bertrand been in front of Gabbiardini, then yes, he's interning; but he wasn't, he was beyond him...