Well done (on making it far enough in school to read, you've clearly outstripped some of your Mackem peers) I don't think I've argued to the contrary... but well done
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.
I didn't realise you were capable of seeing through other peoples eyes - your power knows no bounds. No-one (except Joe Hart) knows that - Not you, not me and not a single pundit or referee.
Marcus these people don't seem to understand.when you are in a offside position and you move you then become active and off side.goufferon moved to allow the ball past I'm consequently he became active thus offside.thats the rule.
Offside Rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offside_(association_football) It's the "interfering with an opponent" bit that's relevant. I've heard people on the radio in the last few days adding a condition that the movement has to be "towards the ball". I don't know where they've got that from, although I'm looking at wikipedia which isn't exactly an ideal reference. As stated before though, the ref disallowed it, so that's what it is.
I, and everyone else with functioning eyes, can see that Gouffran wasn't standing directly in-front of Joe Hart. He was a metre or more to his left. Gouffran moved outside of the line of the direction of travel, thus the ball moved inside him and was fully visible the entire time it was in Gouffran's vicinity... It's plainly obvious that the only potential blockages between Tiote's foot and goal were players who were onside and Man City's own players Glad to have cleared that up for you.
And if you can actually make a logical case for Gouffran interfering with an opponent, I'd like to hear that case Joe Hart made with the offside bawling as soon as the goal went in. Thus he knew a touch (what we call interference, boys and girls) from Gouffran would have made it a valid offside call. However, Gouffran did not touch or block Hart from getting to the ball. Hart did not dive anywhere near Gouffran. If Hart had dived and been prevented from touching the ball by Gouffran's presence (which was physically impossible by the way, because of Gouffran's relative position forward and wide of Hart), then it's a valid offside. If Gouffran had diverted the path of the ball, it's offside. If Gouffran had moved inside the line of the ball so Hart's vision of it was obscured, it'd be tough and technical, but it'd be offside. As it was, it was a perfectly good goal chalked off because the ref made a mistake. The rest of the world has moved on, let us do so
for gods sake man it's not because he was obstructing the keeper. It's because he became active in the situation.thats why he was off side.read all the comments before you post.simple
Not responding to you, am I? Or I'd have quoted you. Your insistence on getting attention is hilarious though "Mummy, mummy, look at me... look what I'm eating" Just shhhhhhh. It's over, accept it.
Who's to say we wouldn't have won 18,933-1? You don't know Such a stupid comment. I mean, why does it matter so much to you lot? Maybe we would have lost, that's not the point though, is it? Nobody has said we'd have drawn or won for certain. We are aggrieved simply because we saw a great goal scored that would have levelled the game and given us a chance of a point. I can't fathom the excuse for not understanding it, so it must be down to genetics
I am diabetic - when I re-apply for my Driving Licence every three years I have to do a "peripheral vision" test. This ensures that I can see things not only in my "line of sight" (or directly in front of me) but also in my "peripheral vision". I did not argue the point about Gouffran not standing directly in fron of Hartr at ANY POINT. You don;t have to be standing in front of someone for them to be able to see you. Look out of the nearest window to you right now - can you not see anything a yard either side of that - this is your "Peripheral vision" and this is where Joe Hart may have seen Gouffran. Anything in your peripheral vision moves then you see it move and are naturally drawn to it. When I look at the window, I can still see my boss stood at around 70 degrees to my left. When he moves I register that he is moving - Gouffran was nowhere near 70 degrees. So I'm actually glad to have cleared THAT up for you OOOOHHHHH!!! Shades of italian ****wit redhead!!
What exactly does you having vicarious daydreams about your boss have to do with anything?! If that is the best way you can convince yourself that the goal was rightly ruled offside, then I think that should categorically convince you that you're 100% incorrect. I can just see the ref saying "Gouffran was in his peripheral vision, so he's offside"... the hoardings, which change every few seconds, are in his peripheral vision, are they offside too?
Difference to this seasons and last seasons for me is that this seasons, the interfering man was well and truly in the 6 yard box, right in the keepers peripherals. Any opposing player offside in the six yard is going to be deemed interfering.
We'll judist, no one has ever won 18,933-1 Not a silly comment at all really, it's a 50/50 comment. The same as going down to the pub and betting on a horse. You either win or lose! Quite simple really mate. Anyway it's hard having a chat with a bloke who can't look himself in the mirror.
