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.
....well notso, it does look like you're on your own! I missed the after game analysis so don't know what the verdict was, anyone know?
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.
I am afraid you are missing something NSS. The laws define all the terms above: In the context of Law 11 â Offside, the following definitions apply: ⢠ânearer to his opponentsâ goal lineâ means that any part of a playerâs head, body or feet is nearer to his opponentsâ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition ⢠âinterfering with playâ means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate ⢠âinterfering with an opponentâ means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponentâs line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent ⢠âgaining an advantage by being in that positionâ 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
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".
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.
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!
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.
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.
