The all-new Premier League thread Page 4479

  • Page

    of 5334 First / Last

  • teamHAM 13 Jan 2014 11:12:04 2,860 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    The-Bodybuilder wrote:
    Hart is a f*cking young c*nt.
    :D

    XBox Live, Origin, PSN and Steam: teamHAM

  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 11:36:39
    Having just watched the disallowed Newcastle goal this morning, I'm inclined to agree with referee. Goufran definitely is active and interfering with play in the offside position, as he's watched the ball the whole way into the box and actively moves to ensure the ball doesn't hit him. If he was walking away, oblivious to the shot then fair enough. But watching in freeze frame Hart's action definitely show him being spooked at the split second Goufran evades the ball.

    Granted, I doubt Newcastle would have got such a decision away at City if the roles were reversed without being backed by some hundreds of billions owner. But in isolation it is a good decision imo, in terms of the inactive offside rule.
  • Steve_Perry 13 Jan 2014 11:46:43 3,835 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Was he obstructing Hart though? No way. What difference does it make if he is watching the ball? If he touched it and it went in, 100% offside, no complaints. A shocking decision and the ref bottled it.

    VIVA STEFANSEN

  • Dougs 13 Jan 2014 11:46:55 67,023 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    LeoliansBro wrote:
    It's a clusterfuck of a rule. Newcastle should have had it but the whole thing should be overhauled, as you could arguably have a wall of Newcastle players standing offside, blocking the goalkeeper's view and them diving out of the way of shots at the last minute and so not being 'active' or whatever.
    As a former defender, I'd have hated to have to try and mark people. You never know where you stand. I know that probably has the desired effect of creating a more open and attacking game, but it shifts the balance too far imo.
  • vijay_UK 13 Jan 2014 11:56:46 2,103 posts
    Seen 3 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    My 2 pennies on the offside goal. I'm no expert, just an opinion :D

    You'd think that Gouffran would realise he is well offside rather than stand there like a muppet, ball watching. It's his laziness that cost Newcastle the goal. Once the ball was out of the box, he should be running back, past at least one defender.

    As for goal itself, it shot past so quickly that Hart had no chance and I am not sure he was bothered that Gouffran or one of his own players was in front of him.

    However, if the goal is allowed, it will open up arguments in every single game about active/inactive. For me, the responsibility is with the attacking team to not be offside - be alert and move up with play. Don't give the ref/linesman a chance to chalk it off.

    No goal.

    ps. If there was a deflection, than goal.

    Edited by vijay_UK at 12:05:56 13-01-2014
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 12:03:02 86,798 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Blotto wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    What a terrible decision to disallow that goal. Wouldn't have blamed Newcastle for just walking off.

    A ref overruling a linesman on offside is ridiculous.
    I think the pundits and media have failed to pick up on what actually happened here. The ball took a deflection on the way in, and the ref believed it to deflect off the "offside" Newcastle player. Hence the decision that he was active and offside.

    So based on that assumption he was correct to overrule the linesman, in that he was in a better position to see that than
    the linesman was. Unfortunately he was mistaken.
    Not sure this is correct, seen it a few times and don't see any deflection. Who's it supposed to have hit?
    It takes a tiny knick off Demichelis.
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 12:07:37
    @Steve_Perry

    He doesn't have to be, to be active in the move. Imagine the same situation with a City player playing him onside. His actions will be putting off the keeper, by either doing a Wellbeck re-direction or dummying the ball (as he did) to aid the initial strike. The fact that he isn't onside doesn't change is intended actions, and as vijay_UK rightfully states, he seeks an advantage by being too lazy to vacate the space at the earliest opportunity. So imo had he moved sooner, like he eventually did, prior to watching the ball, then the goal should have stood.
  • Deckard1 13 Jan 2014 12:10:08 27,583 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Nobody look at him

    Hush you ponce

  • teamHAM 13 Jan 2014 12:10:25 2,860 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It's been well documented that the changes down the years to the offside rule have been designed to always give the attacking team the benefit of the doubt. That makes the decision yesterday even more baffling.

    XBox Live, Origin, PSN and Steam: teamHAM

  • reddevil93 13 Jan 2014 12:13:38 11,498 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Are people not aware there is no 'in my opinion' on this decision? Letter of the law says he wasn't active and this has been clarified by plenty of journalists, pundits and even ex-referees. As kalel says, the ref thought it nicked off him which is why he overruled it, if he knew it hadn't, goal would've stood, simple as.

  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 12:15:11 86,798 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    All bad decision are baffling until you make the leap to accepting that it was an honest mistake made by a fallible human being.
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 12:15:54
    @teamHAM

    But it isn't a benefit of the doubt situation, like a striker being level. Goufran is clearly in an offside position, active and seeking to gain an unfair advantage from his delayed movement.

    Edited by vizzini at 12:16:28 13-01-2014
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2014 12:15:57 12,647 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Being too lazy to vacate the space following a clearance from a corner and an immediate thunderbolt of a half volley? I think you're expecting superhuman like reaction and speed there to be honest. I agree players have a responsibility to get themselves back onside but it's a ridiculous argument in this case, it's split second, not a considered reasoned decision and the fact remains none of them are in the goalkeepers line of sight and none of them interfere with the ball or the goal.

    I don't know if you realise it but most of those images you have seen of the goal are in SUPER SLOW MOTION.

    Have you ever actually set foot on a football pitch yourself?!

    Anyway I think we're all spending far too long dissecting this particular terrible decision.
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2014 12:17:52 12,647 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    @teamHAM

    But it isn't a benefit of the doubt situation, like a striker being level. Goufran is clearly in an offside position, active and seeking to gain an unfair advantage from his delayed movement.
    :D Fucking hell, this post adds a lot of credence to the vizzini = AI bot theory.
  • mcmonkeyplc 13 Jan 2014 12:18:27 39,411 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    We should focus on the impending doom of Man City winning the league again :)

    Come and get it cumslingers!

  • teamHAM 13 Jan 2014 12:20:18 2,860 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    @teamHAM

    But it isn't a benefit of the doubt situation, like a striker being level. Goufran is clearly in an offside position, active and seeking to gain an unfair advantage from his delayed movement.
    Just No.

    XBox Live, Origin, PSN and Steam: teamHAM

  • Dougs 13 Jan 2014 12:20:33 67,023 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    reddevil93 wrote:
    Are people not aware there is no 'in my opinion' on this decision? Letter of the law says he wasn't active and this has been clarified by plenty of journalists, pundits and even ex-referees. As kalel says, the ref thought it nicked off him which is why he overruled it, if he knew it hadn't, goal would've stood, simple as.
    What does the letter of the law say about active and passive? Genuinely have no idea and wouldn't necessarily take any pundits word for it
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 12:22:13 14,265 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    All bad decision are baffling until you make the leap to accepting that it was an honest mistake made by a fallible human being.
    I dunno it often seems to me that we get a reason like this a day or two after a shocking decision. It's almost like the refs have got together and tried to find some kind of excuse they can use to justify it.
  • teamHAM 13 Jan 2014 12:22:52 2,860 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    reddevil93 wrote:
    Are people not aware there is no 'in my opinion' on this decision? Letter of the law says he wasn't active and this has been clarified by plenty of journalists, pundits and even ex-referees. As kalel says, the ref thought it nicked off him which is why he overruled it, if he knew it hadn't, goal would've stood, simple as.
    The ref gave the goal. The linesman didn't flag either. They both then changed their minds and came up with the theory that it must have nicked off someone so they ruled it out.

    Yeah, great officiating.

    XBox Live, Origin, PSN and Steam: teamHAM

  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2014 12:23:08 12,647 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    teamHAM wrote:
    vizzini wrote:
    @teamHAM

    But it isn't a benefit of the doubt situation, like a striker being level. Goufran is clearly in an offside position, active and seeking to gain an unfair advantage from his delayed movement.
    Just No.
    Whoever upgraded vizzini to include "football" has a lot to answer for.
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 12:23:34
    @mikew1985

    Yes, Played centre and left midfield and all positions across the back line. But typically played more Rugby than football in my youth.

    But look at it from the other situation. If Gourfran was inactive, oblivious to ball so doesn't move and the ball strikes him, then in the event of it beating Hart to score, the goal is disallowed regardless. Sort of like disproving a goal by a quasi-mathematical induction.
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 12:23:59 14,265 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The BBC have this definition of active:

    ...preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or challenging an opponent for the ball.
  • mikew1985 13 Jan 2014 12:24:50 12,647 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    So if he becomes active the goal would be disallowed. Madness.
  • TheSaint 13 Jan 2014 12:25:32 14,265 posts
    Seen 48 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    vizzini wrote:
    But look at it from the other situation. If Gourfran was inactive, oblivious to ball so doesn't move and the ball strikes him, then in the event of it beating Hart to score, the goal is disallowed regardless. Sort of like disproving a goal by a quasi-mathematical induction.
    Not sure what that has to do with anything. The whole controversy is because he didn't touch it.
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 12:29:58 86,798 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Sorry again to return to my "the media are ruining football by constantly going on about refs and decisions" agenda, but this whole offside rule thing is a perfect illustration of it.

    If you go back to the years preceding the definition of an "active" player, it used to be that you were not offside if you were "running back" (I.e. not involved in the play and trying to get back onside), or on occasion a player who was doing up his shoelace or injured was also considered exempt. It was basically a common sense thing for refs to make a judgement on, and it was extremely obvious in most cases if a player was offside or not.

    But pundits and the media were constantly banging on about how there had to be consistency. Consistency became the favourite word for everyone to harp on about with regards to offsides, red cards, time added on etc etc. So various rules were introduced to bring in consistency and remove all common sense. One of these was the definition of a player being "active", to cover off all the circumstances above that refs were previously using their own judgment for. Another was the last man rule, which replaced the old rule about "professional fouls" which again required more common sense on the part of the ref.

    The irony is, the more we try to bring in consistency, the harder we make it for refs to adhere to the rules we're setting, and the worse refs appear to be.
  • Punctum 13 Jan 2014 12:32:25 933 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    reddevil93 wrote:
    Are people not aware there is no 'in my opinion' on this decision? Letter of the law says he wasn't active and this has been clarified by plenty of journalists, pundits and even ex-referees. As kalel says, the ref thought it nicked off him which is why he overruled it, if he knew it hadn't, goal would've stood, simple as.
    Yep, and the angle he saw it from did make it look how he interpreted it.
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 12:33:36
    TheSaint wrote:
    vizzini wrote:
    But look at it from the other situation. If Gourfran was inactive, oblivious to ball so doesn't move and the ball strikes him, then in the event of it beating Hart to score, the goal is disallowed regardless. Sort of like disproving a goal by a quasi-mathematical induction.
    Not sure what that has to do with anything. The whole controversy is because he didn't touch it.
    @TheSaint

    Maybe a little too subtle for you, I don't know. But to be inactive in the move, Goufran had to get out the way before the keeper becomes active in the move, make no movement or be onside. Only one of those options could have resulted in a valid goal and Goufran didn't choose to do it. Hence why the goal was rightfully chalked off.
  • kalel 13 Jan 2014 12:36:41 86,798 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    All bad decision are baffling until you make the leap to accepting that it was an honest mistake made by a fallible human being.
    I dunno it often seems to me that we get a reason like this a day or two after a shocking decision. It's almost like the refs have got together and tried to find some kind of excuse they can use to justify it.
    Why do you think they make mistakes then? Corruption? Team bias?
  • captbirdseye 13 Jan 2014 12:39:53 4,836 posts
    Seen 55 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Hehe, Jamie Redknapp comapring Bentaleb with Xavi...guy is a tool!
  • Deleted user 13 January 2014 12:40:17
    kalel wrote:
    Sorry again to return to my "the media are ruining football by constantly going on about refs and decisions" agenda, but this whole offside rule thing is a perfect illustration of it.

    .
    Aye, the whole monday with dermot gallacher thing on sky sports news is excruciating.
  • Page

    of 5334 First / Last

Log in or register to reply