Am I missing something here? There were 3 players in offside positions, two of them moving backwards and the other one getting out of the way of the ball, thereby distracting the goal keeper, surely that is classed as "interfering with play". Joe Hart must have had one eye on Goufran seeing as he was very close to him. Whilst I do sympathise with the home team, I believe that under the strange new rules, the ref got it right. For the life of me I still don't understand why they changed the rule, it was simple, your either offside or your not, even players and referees don't understand the new rules so what chance have spectators got.
I thought it should have been a goal personally. It wasn't though. **** happens. It's happened to us all season.
Define interference. The ball would have hit gouf had he not moved. He did move. Does that fit the definition?
The Mags get one iffy decision, which was perfectly the correct decision in my opinion, and there is a media frenzy. We have had at least 12 game changing decisions against us, far more clear cut than that, without hardly a whimper. Stoke City got the biggest raw deal off the ref this weekend which has also hardly got a mention..It does make you wonder!!
Put it this way - Giaccherini was onside against Villa and that never stood. He wasn't even in an offside position but it was ruled out. At least there was someone offside for theirs and they think that they're the worst done to team in the l;eague because of one goal! Wait till it happens 7 or 8 times and then watch them complain. Personally - I hope it happens on the first Feb and we beat them with an offside goal almost identical to that one!!
I agree unfortunately these are the rules. I believe that under the strange new rules, the ref got it right.
Define interference. The ball would have hit gouf had he not moved. He did move. Does that fit the definition? He became active when he moved.therefore he was off side.
Morning. I don't usually post on your board, but I saw the thread title on the Premier League board. I for one have moved on. It wasn't given and that's football. End of. However, what this thread shows (along with many other threads, newspaper reports, expert views, TV pundits, ex refs, etc) is that it's too open to interpretation. The laws are messy. I totally take on what you've all said about Gouf interfering with play. But I think your take on that situation purely comes down to which colours you wear. Just imagine for a minute that it's the local derby. Newcastle are 1-0 up but you're getting back into the game and one if yours slams a 'goal' like Tiote's. Only to see it chalked off for the exact same positional technicalities of offside. Are you saying you'd all say, "well done ref, good spot. Correct decision."? I think not. The issue here is that it's not clear cut. It's not an absolute yes or no. It's down to interpretation and personal judgement. The others refs who have spoken out have proven that. My view is that ultimately the ref is in charge and sometimes they have to make judgements you don't all agree with. But that's their job. It's tough for them too. Anyway, with the obvious exception of the derby, good luck for the rest of the season. I'd much prefer you to still be in the Prem. You can now commence the barrage attack on the Mag.
It was the correct decision.the only thing is these decisions have to be across the board and all refs must sing from the same hymn sheet.its all about fairness and consistency.
Do I hear a distant voice from the Championship...? Refs, ex-refs, media, every pundit (except Garth Crooks, which should be the nail in the coffin! ), the actual rules of the game (LAW 11) and almost to a man, every other fan (including Man City fans) say that it was wrongly given offside... But no, you simpletons have to be different don't you... I wonder why Enjoy sucking on those lemons boys... Let us know when you bother climbing out the bottom 3 and your opinion actually matters
I dont know why they dont go back to the old way. If you are in an offside position, you're offside, if you are interfering with play or not. Simple as that.
Yeh I agree but the people who make these rules just want to be in charge and do it because they can.
Ummmm, no it doesn't... As many pundits should have aptly explained to you by now, even if you insist on donning your Greek robes and trying to be Aristotle about it... "He didn't interfer, thus his non-interference was interference" As I put it on another thread... "Well, let's put this logically then. Hart sees Gouffran, who he anticipates may get a touch on the ball and divert the path, thus doesn't dive... WHY WAS HE CLAIMING OFFSIDE SO VIGOROUSLY THEN??????? If Joe sees he's in an offside position, then any touch will be met with a flag. Therefore why hasn't Joe dived knowing that Gouffran can't touch it? Fact is, Joe couldn't save it, he didn't even bother diving, not even a disheartened flop to his left. Gouffran clearly did not affect his line of sight, Man City players did, as countless people have suggested." If you can't understand the rules, we're done on this topic I'm afraid, and you can continue making yourself look foolish
