Yeah, though my understanding was that it wasn't so much that he was in the keeper's way as that he jumped to head the ball (though he didn't make contact).
If this was true, during a free kick could the attacking team not just line up on the edge of the 6 yard box and all duck as the shot comes in? I suspect at least one of them would affect the keeper's actions Let's pretend that the Newcastle player wasnt there near Hart. Would Hart have dived? (whether or not he would have gotten near the ball). I say he would. But in his vision he sees another player and does not dive. Hart would look pretty silly diving to his left only to have the ball tapped in to where he just came from. That is why he was offside for me.
This happened 10 years before football was invented in 1992. Oh how we boo'ed (but made Armstrong's last minute winner all the sweeter, still one of the best bundles ever on the Archers) [video=youtube;S9SXa55s2OM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9SXa55s2OM[/video]
Funnily enough in those few seconds before it was disallowed I was moaning that it should have been. Having seen the replay though I wasn't so sure. Clearly he wasn't in the line of vision when the ball was struck but he was when it went into the goal as he had to move his body to get out of its way. So, there are still interpretation issues there. I think us oldies will never like the more liberal interpretations of the law because we know how disciplined you had to be as a forward back in the day. However, 'the interfering with play' thing was over used back then, hence the changes. It can never be as simple as the ball touching the player in an offside position because as has been said, players would deliberately obstruct. What really annoys me with the current law is that players can get themselves into a goal scoring position by being offside (under the old interpretation) only to be on-side again when the ball is finally passed to them. By definition, the fact that they are in a position to score the goal means that in the build up to it they must have been interfering. I would love to see a game with no offside. I can't get my head around how it would unfold.
All 3 Newcastle players were offside because defence had pushed up if theses goals are allowed then what's the point of defenders learning that part of the game ,think it was bill shankley or cloughy that said if a forward is not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch , it was a great strike and had it been a saints goal I would be pissed but had it been against I would have said no he was interfering as he had to move his body to get out of the way,, all goes to prove that the offside law is not only difficult to interpret ,it's difficult to ref and play too ,
It would be a farce. Every team would simply put a big man on the six-yard line and hoof long balls to him, and defences would respond by retreating to the same distance, leaving an enormous space in the middle of the pitch where midfielders could lay back and watch the ball fly back and forward overhead (or more likely, join in the ruck at either end).
Didn't see this yesterday: http://www.footballorgin.com/2014/01/premier-league-2013-2014-newcastle.html Skip to 33 minutes of the match [roughly 35.30 minutes for those who prefer to use the elapsed time of the video]. A goal, I believe, by any stretch of the imagination.
I think he was interfering. Who knows what Hart was thinking, but it seems reasonable to assume that he didn't dive or pehaphs would be less likely to dive due to not knowing whether it was going to hit the offside player. I personally think had the player not been there he would have dived, wouldn't have saved it but still the player is still interfering.
For me that call could have gone either way. I can definitely see why that goal was disallowed - Gouffran was adjudged to have put Hart off therefore was interfering with play. But I can also understand why Newcastle are feeling hard done by.
The fact both sides can argue so clearly and effectively shows how bad the law is. Personally, if a player has to duck out of the way, then he is interfering. What if he'd dummies it? Not much difference. I think he SHOULD have been called offside - but not sure he really was under the current law.
Well, according to pundits Lawrenson and Mills, there was no interference, or obstruction of Hart's vision by Newcastle players [plenty by ManC players though] and therefore the disallowed goal should have stood. They didn't think there was any reason for consultation between the officials, it was that clear. So there we are.
Trick question which Premier side has caught most players offside so far this season? According to one set of statistics that is!
Times up> http://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/facts-every-premier-league-team-has-scored-header-except : says its us.
Well, seeing as our back line situate themselves so high up the pitch, I'd say Saints are a fair contender for that one. Did I see a WBA player on Saturday get caught offside no more than a couple of feet the wrong side [for him] of the halfway line..? Now that's what I'd call a high line. Mind you, you're saying trick question, so it's probably nothing to do with football anyway.
offside for me. Like said above. I think as a goalkeeper you don't know whether to dive or not when the player is so close to the line of the ball and also so close to the goal so it therefore interferes with play as it influences the keeper's decision (or indecision)
