Its just a modern day trait to sit back and hold on it seems - Zola was just quite rare I think! Lots on the Leicester board are actually suggesting had we not time wasting or faked injuries we might have held on because the ref would have added less injury time. Maybe a lesson learnt there too? I know all teams do it but don't think we are the sort of team to get away with it as such - look at what happened at Ipswich when we got fined for basically having a go at the ref like all teams do. Wasn't there and actually we haven't been accused of it that much this season...probably because we haven't had a lead to hold onto very often!
Im sorry but thats crap! There were 6 subs in the second half, each add 00:30 so 03:00 there, Almunia and Ekstrand collided badly and required attention. So another 01:30 add to make it 04:30 plus about 00:30 for the goal celebration and you have the 05:00. The goal was scored with about 0:40 to play, so never mind the fact that we werent time wasting! It made no difference.
And if I remember rightly, that was the only injury for which play was stopped - the ref totally ignored Battocchio's pain and left him to eventually run it off, ditto for Tozser who hobbled off at half time.
Exactly. Its just another example of a team who didnt live up to expectations moaning and trying to make themselves feel good after being shown up. They are bitter as a lot have clubs have been.
If you're referring to Forestieri's goal when you mention a linesman's mistake, I suggest you have another look - when Deeney kicked the ball through, Forestieri was quite clearly onside. The fact that he was motoring at a great rate of knots obviously confused everyone - bar the ref & linesman.
Even most of the Leicester fans agreed it was onside having seen it and no management or player mentioned it.
It did look a mile offside at the time but having seen the replay it's borderline so I will give FF the benefit of the doubt The Lino still had a shocker though You played very well up until you went 2-0 up when you sort of decided that was enough and you was going to sit on it. Last season that would have been us dead and buried This year though we don't know when were beat.
Very generous of you - given that it wasn't borderline and there was no doubt... But it does highlight a problem with the rules that needs addressing - the offside rule. I never did understand why it was changed to 'level with is onside' - it was fairly obvious that that would create nothing but problems for match officials, being far harder to police.
I think a little bit of common sense would go a long way. You get officials who will flag when the attackers head is offside, but the rest of him is onside. Dont flag unless he is clearly ahead of the player!!
Which highlights my point... The wording, I believe, implies that a player is onside if he is level with the last defender - you can't wait until he is clearly ahead before flagging. Oh for the refs/rules of my playing days - when linesmen were instructed not to raise their flags for offside unless there was that clear daylight between the players.
You have to appreciate why the offside law was written - to enhance the tactics of the game, and prevent 'goal hanging'. You then have to ask why so often referees and assistants interpret the law differently. You also have to ask why they are actively discouraged from playing the game at a young age (Atkinson hasn't played competitive football since he was 14, neither has Atwell, two of the three top class officials I've met - Elleray is the other and he was all but inapproachable, very much the Harrow School -master) so they do not get a feel for what happens in a game from a players point of view. You then have to ask why that bunch of amateur blazers saw fit to muck about with the law when it was working perfectly well - trust me, the law has not changed just the interpretation. And yes, if a part of the body is capable of scoring is in front of the penultimate defender when the ball is played then he is in an offside position... so if the feet are behind and the head is in front (stooping) then he is offside. I consider that ridiculous in the case of a through ball where a player will not be using his head on the ball anyway! The semantics I have to deal with, with "colleagues" who also have not played the game and do not understand the WHY of a law as a result is beyond belief. The benefit of doubt in offside should always go to the attacking side, otherwise we are doing the defenders job! I would rather give a goal that was marginally offside than disallow one that was marginally onside. They seem to have lost sight of this.... although Liverpool's opener on Saturday was a case in point that suggests otherwise .
