having run the line myself before its a difficult job so i understand when they get them wrong but that one was pretty clear cut i felt. at the time i said offside before he'd got near the keeper. not complaining about it! after the terrible decision in the world cup i reckon we are owed about ten offside goals*!! *unless we are still being punished for the world cup in 66 surely we've been punished enough what with maradona and simeone etc
The offside rule is a complete farce now. Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team? Remember that one? Either you're on or you're off! Now we have phases and active play and now you have to touch the bleedin ball to be active. How you're supposed to defend now I have no idea.
totally agree yorkie. it needs to be clarified and maybe replaced with the old more clear cut one. as cloughy once said, "If a player is not interfering with play then he shouldn't be on the bloody pitch"
Its an obsession that goals are everything in football. Personally I wouldn't find anything exciting knowing the game was going to end up 8-7. The exciting thing about goals is that they are normally few and far between so crucial when they go in. Both codes of Rugby became obsessed with points scoring and now we are getting basketball scores. As someone who played midfield or defence, I do not see the point of rewarding a goal scorer, forward, striker whatever instead of an outstanding performance by a centre back and the rest of his back four. There are 11 positions in a team and each one equally as valuable.
Without Rooney upfront we are clueless. Welbeck is so over rated, he has rarely ever impressed me. Campbell offers nothing we don't already have. With Bent out and Defoe past it we need a goal scorer in the squad, especially when you consider we will be without Rooney for the first two euro games. Grant Holt scores goals, he also offers a different style of play to the current crop. For those first two games I really think we need a big man upfront to support Sturridge. I can't see us having enough impact upfront with out a big man or Rooney in the first 2 games. Holt would hold the ball up wonderfully for Sturridge, plus if you get good balls in the box Holt is very very likely to score. When Rooney returns we will have more options but without him those options are limited at best.
If Holt carries on scoring and setting up goals right up to the end of the season, but still doesn't get picked for the friendly in May, we may as well just give up trying to get him a place. I for one fear that he will not be given his chance, even if he does carry on performing well, but more importantly I don't think Ruddy will be given a chance either.
.........my memory says that it was paisley who said that, still, whoever said it was speaking the truth. if you're not interfering with play it's because you're a spectator.
just looked it up - we were both wrong! ----- WHO SAID THAT? "Can you clear up who actually first uttered 'If he's not interfering with play, what's he doing on the pitch'? Was it Shankly, or Blanchflower, or none of the above?" enquires Steve Antrobus. In the last few weeks of debate I have seen various reports attributing the quote to both. I am a Spurs fan but I have refrained from sticking my neck out and claiming it as Blanchflower's, so far!" And it's a good job you did Steve, as neither Bill nor Danny can rightly take the credit for such insight, something today's rule-making suits would do well to listen to and discuss over their grande double-decaf skinny latte triple mochachinos. But you will be glad to hear your right to bask in reflected Spurs glory (now there's some words that don't often rub shoulders in the same sentence) has not been entirely denied, as the coiner of the much-quoted phrase was in fact White Hart Lane legend Bill Nicholson in his days as manager at the club - and not, as some scouse quarters would have you believe, Bill Shankly. Shankly's wordy take on the situation was in fact "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be." Which, we think you will agree, is completely different. Anything else we can clear up for you? You know what to do. [email protected]
thanks superman,will take it on board and by next week will have forgotten who said it all over again.
The most amusing thing for me was Clive Tylsley or whatever his name is saying how wonderful Robben's winner was, how it was world class, it deserved to win any game and Andy Townsend very flatly replying, it took a huge deflection, which it quite clearly did and the a few seconds later having seen on four replays what most people saw at full speed Tylsley very sheepishly saying there was a degree of luck about it
