Talking about the defensive high line, you would have thought that more teams would have chosen the ball-over-the-top by now. I don't know about others, but I expected teams to be popping the ball beyond the back line at every opportunity, given that Saints are recognised as playing as they do, yet very few teams try it.
Little update. Mike Jones has not been awarded a game for this Saturday. He's the 4th official at our game. OK, it often happens. It just may have been his turn. But... http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/25725099 Notably, former Premier League referee Alan Wiley told BBC Radio 5 live that Jones made "an error of judgement". Jones ruled Yoan Gouffran was offside when a 25-yard shot from Tiote went into the net. Wiley added: "We can all see that he [Gouffran] is not in front of the goalkeeper. The goal should have stood. Shall we say there's an end to it..?
Just one more person's opinion. Wiley should probably be more diplomatic when discussing the decisions of his fellow referees to be honest.
I would have thought that this opinion has greater validity than most though, wouldn't you..? Otherwise everything is up for grabs. Can't be bothered to look back through the thread, but judging from your reaction, his view was contrary to yours..?
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.
I suppose the PL can be divided into two types of teams. Teams that are poorer than us, like WBA, who are forced to defend in depth and hope to put away their one or two chances they inevitably get. Others are the top sides who are confident and competent enough to try and outplay us. The fact that we close them all down may also limit the ability to look up and put a shot into space for someone to run on. It is the obvious technique to beat us, but the fact it is rarely attempted suggests that we have that covered.
Well I personally agree with that analysis, but unfortunately that's not the end of it. The rule is far too complicated and this will happen again.
Oh, I'm sure that isn't the end of it. This will come up again and again, because the offside rule is still open to too much interpretation. My comment, as I think you probably knew, was referring to the debate of this particular incident.
I don't claim to have the authority to rule definitively one way or the other, but I can see why the referee disallowed it, and am surprised that Wiley with his experience of refereeing cannot. I'm not suggesting refs should never criticise each other but I'm not sure it helps anyone (except for himself) for Wiley to be so unequivocal in his condemnation.
I think he was unequivocal because he was asked for his opinion and plainly it was a goal [OK, let's say in his opinion]. From my perspective, I should say that I didn't see it at the time of the incident, but seeing as Not606 members were in debate about it, I went and found the link to the match, and put it up on the thread, after I watched the incident several times. At no point did it ever cross my mind that it wasn't a goal. In fact, I only bothered to watch it several times because people were suggesting that it might not be a goal [and Mike Jones and his lino hadn't allowed it, of course]. I honestly don't think there is any controversy about it. To me it's as plain as day that it was a goal, and Wiley's remarks don't seem unduly harsh or direct.
The trick was that I answered it before anyone could find out! The dink ball tactic mentioned, can be a good tactic but also risks giving the ball back to the opposition if it isn't accurate enough. Didn't Villa catch us out using it?
Yes and Burnley. The problem is exacerbated when we play a high line and have slow defenders of course.
More offside capers from Italy. [video=youtube;RZGFTlaSkJs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZGFTlaSkJs[/video]
The intended player to receive the ball didn't touch it, and was not obstructing the vision of the goalkeeper. so not offside, by my understanding of the rule. Play to the whistle, and all that. If you notice, referees don't whistle up until normally offside looking players touch the ball. Years ago you were just offside whether you reached the ball or not. Trouble is, they keep adjusting the rule every season or so, so that just as one gets to grips with it, they've shifted the goalposts** again. Remember when Van Horse scored against Saints and WGS and the rest of us couldn't believe it..? None of us had got the memo. **which they never do. Was the Italian flagged as offside..? By the way, if my understanding is incorrect, someone had better link me through to the offside rule.
Yep. To be fair his defending on the third goal was probably worse. Callejon's first goal worth a watch. [video=youtube;Q5JRuZXsbWM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5JRuZXsbWM[/video]
