Rival watch

  • 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
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
deedub93 said:
Why, if you give your opponent 3 goals why should you deserve anything?
Click to expand...

They defended poorly, granted, but they still played pretty well and were more than a match for their opponents at the other end. They did so well to get back into the game and go 2-2 before the ref made a bad mistake giving 'Pool a penalty and even then Stoke didn't give up and kept pushing forward trying to score.

They really deserved a point in my opinion.
 
notsosmartspur said:
Going back to the Tiote goal incident, my first thought was....correct decision to disallow. Reason, the infringement was offside while interfering with play. The commentator seemed fixated on being in Harts view, which he wasn't, but, the player had to get out of the way of the ball on its way to the net, if he'd stood there it would have hit him and no been a goal, so he has to be part of that phase of play, and to the letter of the rule, when the ball was struck he was in an offside position. Feeling very on my own here, have I missed something?

"Quote:
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position "
Click to expand...


....well notso, it does look like you're on your own! <laugh>

I missed the after game analysis so don't know what the verdict was, anyone know?
 
Yid Vicious said:
They defended poorly, granted, but they still played pretty well and were more than a match for their opponents at the other end. They did so well to get back into the game and go 2-2 before the ref made a bad mistake giving 'Pool a penalty and even then Stoke didn't give up and kept pushing forward trying to score.

They really deserved a point in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Mingerlait made a couple of decent saves and Stoke hit the post, but anyone with Adam in their side doesn't deserve a lot IMHO.
 
notsosmartspur said:
Going back to the Tiote goal incident, my first thought was....correct decision to disallow. Reason, the infringement was offside while interfering with play. The commentator seemed fixated on being in Harts view, which he wasn't, but, the player had to get out of the way of the ball on its way to the net, if he'd stood there it would have hit him and no been a goal, so he has to be part of that phase of play, and to the letter of the rule, when the ball was struck he was in an offside position. Feeling very on my own here, have I missed something?

"Quote:
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position "
Click to expand...
I am afraid you are missing something NSS. The laws define all the terms above:

In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means preventing an opponent 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, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

So he did none of those things and should not have been penalised
 
PowerSpurs said:
I am afraid you are missing something NSS. The laws define all the terms above:

In the context of Law 11 &#8211; Offside, the following definitions apply:
&#8226; &#8220;nearer to his opponents&#8217; goal line&#8221; means that any part of a player&#8217;s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents&#8217; goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
&#8226; &#8220;interfering with play&#8221; means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
&#8226; &#8220;interfering with an opponent&#8221; means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent&#8217;s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
&#8226; &#8220;gaining an advantage by being in that position&#8221; means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

So he did none of those things and should not have been penalised
Click to expand...

I believe it was Bill Shankly who said "if you're not interfering with play then what the hell are you doing on the pitch".
 
PowerSpurs said:
I am afraid you are missing something NSS. The laws define all the terms above:

In the context of Law 11 &#8211; Offside, the following definitions apply:
&#8226; &#8220;nearer to his opponents&#8217; goal line&#8221; means that any part of a player&#8217;s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents&#8217; goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition
&#8226; &#8220;interfering with play&#8221; means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate
&#8226; &#8220;interfering with an opponent&#8221; means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent&#8217;s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
&#8226; &#8220;gaining an advantage by being in that position&#8221; means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

So he did none of those things and should not have been penalised
Click to expand...

How have I missed this?

Hart hesitates, he doesn't dive at all, to me, thinking Gouffran is going to deflect it, he's a distraction how ever you look at it imo., and very arguable he deceived Hart not to dive. Hart's thickness in not knowing the rules either is no support to the argument!

As its a keeper issue it would good to hear Spurcats view as if he were Hart. :)
 
notsosmartspur said:
How have I missed this?

Hart hesitates, he doesn't dive at all, to me, thinking Gouffran is going to deflect it, he's a distraction how ever you look at it imo., and very arguable he deceived Hart not to dive. Hart's thickness in not knowing the rules either is no support to the argument!

As its a keeper issue it would good to hear Spurcats view as if he were Hart. :)
Click to expand...

If I was the keeper, I would have gone nuts if it had been allowed. Of course the player was interfering with play.
 
As a ref, I would have held the attacker to have been interfering with play. It all comes down to how the ref saw it, as he can only go by what he actually saw (if he's doubtful about what he saw, he can ask the other officials to help him clarify).
 
I don't know why they changed the previous off side law anyway.

I think when they changed the off side law in the 20's(?),Arsenal invented the stopper center half to stop attacking football......and it worked for THEM!
 
O.Spurcat said:
I believe it was Bill Shankly who said "if you're not interfering with play then what the hell are you doing on the pitch".
Click to expand...

I thought it was Bill Nicholson, but in those days the flag went up 99% of the time whether you touched the ball or not,and any controversy was limited to the 1% when it didn't. These days the flag rarely goes up when the ball isn't touched.
 
notsosmartspur said:
How have I missed this?

Hart hesitates, he doesn't dive at all, to me, thinking Gouffran is going to deflect it, he's a distraction how ever you look at it imo., and very arguable he deceived Hart not to dive. Hart's thickness in not knowing the rules either is no support to the argument!

As its a keeper issue it would good to hear Spurcats view as if he were Hart. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry NSS, your post said he was 'interfering with play' which he clearly wasn't. For myself, I can't see how the words you bolded can include deliberately moving away from the ball. If he had touched it he would have been offside so there was no need for Hart to not dive. But it does say 'in the opinion of the referee' so since the ref thought so, I suppose the decision was right!
 
Milan are currently losing 3-2 to Sassuolo just before half-time, having gone 2-0 up after less than 15 minutes. Not going well for them at the moment.
I'd only heard of their opposition the other day for the first time, I must admit. Must be the Wigan of Italy, I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back