I'd love to know how this former head of referees explains what Bertrand was doing if he wasn't involved in play? Just an interested bystander maybe? And you, you've not given your assessment on why he was making that run into the box. Because I'm genuinely interested to know he can be deemed not involved.
You don't seem to understand the current rules mate, the fact that he's in an offside position is irrelevant if he doesn't touch the ball and doesn't interfere with the passage of play - which in that situation would have been him being in the keepers eyeline. He was beyond where the ball was put into the net and therefore wasn't offside. Every pundit, ex ref, journo and commentator agrees with the simple fact it was a ****e call, as it's the ****ing rules What effect it may or may not have had on the game and the result is a complete unknown and not really the point, it's the fact that it was a cup final and the officials have got an easy call completely wrong.
So fackin what if you did, my point remains that you interrupted a debate just because someone was a Spurs fan. You can't help trolling....it's not your fault.
Skiddy argues first then tries to make a case for it, it's how he rolls. It's more than likely he didn't even watch the game. He's an expert judge on Spurs games he doesn't watch either.
Nsis has quoted the rule and the rule does not say anything specific about interfering with the goalkeeper, which you all continually keep coming back to. He's interfering with play as he is charging into the box to get on the end of the cross and is catching the eye of at least two defenders. He is therefore involved, to suggest anything else is ludicrous to be perfectly frank. If he was stood still then fair enough. He wasn't. I know the rule, I don't need to be patronised, thanks. The rule is as grey as **** and until off side is offside there will always be arguments but he's interfering with play because he's got every intention of getting on the end of that cross. The fact is someone else got there first. Ah well, he was still off side.
We're there any other contentious decisions? The fact Southampton should have had a player sent off maybe? I doubt anyone would refer to that given it went against United.
Sorry but that comment shows that you don't understand the rule Chief. If Bertrand had been at the front post and had gone for that ball before Gabbiadini he'd have been offside If he'd have been at the front post and thus distracting the keeper before the ball reached Gabbiadini he'd have been offside. However, he was running in at the back stick and despite being in an offside position the ball didn't reach him and the keeper was the opposite side of the goal. He therefore didn't affect the play and wasn't active, the ball went into the net from a player who was clearly onside.
