Newcastle v Man City

[Hotchilidog]

He was in the line of the shot and had to move to allow the ball in the net. If you are practically in the six yard box you are interfering with play. I do not understand the fuss about this. If that goal had been given against us I would have been furious. The definition of interfering seems open to interpretation to me so the ref is entitled to disallow it. You cannot have players goal-hanging on the off chance they may slightly be out of the way, they will still be in the peripheral vision of the keeper. Pardew just cements his reputation as a complete tool.

 

[Bladders]

He was in the line of the shot and had to move to allow the ball in the net. If you are practically in the six yard box you are interfering with play. I do not understand the fuss about this. If that goal had been given against us I would have been furious. The definition of interfering seems open to interpretation to me so the ref is entitled to disallow it. You cannot have players goal-hanging on the off chance they may slightly be out of the way, they will still be in the peripheral vision of the keeper. Pardew just cements his reputation as a complete tool.

Nice ......but wrong

 

[Acker79]

Does this part not cover the incident if you extend the wording from between the goal post to near the keeper? Had he stayed still a goal would have been given, but as he moved to allow the ball to go past him. There is also the point that he stabbed at the ball so did the ref or lino think that he had touched it to help it on its way, he didnt but not for the want of trying. So I think that the ref made the right call to disallow the goal.

I'm pretty sure not, as that paragraph is specifically about if the player is in the goal mouth, I.e. When he is not on the pitch so can't technically be in an offside position, which is why that paragraph specifies that if a player is penalised for that, a drop ball is to be played rather than an indirect free kick.

 

[The Large One]

The phrase 'peripheral vision' is a red herring here. In fact, it's an irrelevance.

The consideration is to whether the Newcastle forward was interfering or impeding Joe Hart's ability to reach the ball. He clearly wasn't - the lino, it seems, thought he was.

 

[Hotchilidog]

The phrase 'peripheral vision' is a red herring here. In fact, it's an irrelevance.

The consideration is to whether the Newcastle forward was interfering or impeding Joe Hart's ability to reach the ball. He clearly wasn't - the lino, it seems, thought he was.

I would say that if Hart could see him in his peripheral vision as the newcastle player was directly in the line of the shot then he was interfering with play. The goal was only scored as the forward moved out of the way. If he remained where he was it would not have been a goal, therefore he played a part in the goal being scored. I can see I am in the minority here, and possibly incorrect according to rules, but I think there was sufficient ambiguity about this decision for it not to be the utter outrage that it is considered to be.

 

[keaton]

More fuss seems to be made about a 50/50 offside decision than the ref giving a yellow card for a two yellows and a red tackle in the same match

 

[Acker79]

Dermot Gallagher on ssn says there's no question in his mind it's a goal.

 

[The Large One]

I would say that if Hart could see him in his peripheral vision as the newcastle player was directly in the line of the shot then he was interfering with play. The goal was only scored as the forward moved out of the way. If he remained where he was it would not have been a goal, therefore he played a part in the goal being scored. I can see I am in the minority here, and possibly incorrect according to rules, but I think there was sufficient ambiguity about this decision for it not to be the utter outrage that it is considered to be.

And there's the magic phrase - 'ambiguity'.

The linesman has to know - or at least be satisfied - that the Newcastle player was interfering with play. From where he was standing, just because he moved, it doesn't follow that he was interfering with Joe Hart's ability to reach the ball. I'm wondering how could he reach that decision from his vantage point?

 

[Hotchilidog]

And there's the magic phrase - 'ambiguity'.

The linesman has to know - or at least be satisfied - that the Newcastle player was interfering with play. From where he was standing, just because he moved, it doesn't follow that he was interfering with Joe Hart's ability to reach the ball. I'm wondering how could he reach that decision from his vantage point?

It may or may not be that the Newcastle player was interfering, but did the ref/lino THINK he was interfering? There is a human element to this decision which allows this debate to occur. In my opinion the player was interfering (if you are on or near the six yard box what else are you doing, admiring the view?), in the view of many others he was not as he did not touch the ball. I think there was a sufficient amount grey surrounding the decision for a debate to have occurred should goal have been allowed. I do not think it was as clear cut as others suggest. No idea why I care, I can't stand either team. Just glad Pardew was upset by it I suppose.

 

[Husty]

Would agree with this (without having seen it live) if he has had to move himself out of the way of the ball he is in play.

Having now seen it, goal should have stood.

 

[The Large One]

It may or may not be that the Newcastle player was interfering, but did the ref/lino THINK he was interfering? There is a human element to this decision which allows this debate to occur. In my opinion the player was interfering (if you are on or near the six yard box what else are you doing, admiring the view?), in the view of many others he was not as he did not touch the ball. I think there was a sufficient amount grey surrounding the decision for a debate to have occurred should goal have been allowed. I do not think it was as clear cut as others suggest. No idea why I care, I can't stand either team. Just glad Pardew was upset by it I suppose.

Cue Ady's embellished story by the frozen peas.

 

[keaton]

And there's the magic phrase - 'ambiguity'.

The linesman has to know - or at least be satisfied - that the Newcastle player was interfering with play. From where he was standing, just because he moved, it doesn't follow that he was interfering with Joe Hart's ability to reach the ball. I'm wondering how could he reach that decision from his vantage point?

Isn't the linesman's job to decide whether he's in an offside position and the referee decides if he's interfering with play?

 

[The Large One]

Isn't the linesman's job to decide whether he's in an offside position and the referee decides if he's interfering with play?

No. If the linesman thought the player wasn't interfering, he wouldn't raise his flag. It's his decision whether to raise his flag. The referee can over-rule him.

If those roles were so clearly defined, why did they need to have a conversation?

 

[The Wizard]

Cabaye should have been sent off after that anyway, ref bottled it big time & that Yanga-mbiwia should have been sent off for that disgusting kick at Nasri, cannot stand tackles like that.

 

[keaton]

No. If the linesman thought the player wasn't interfering, he wouldn't raise his flag. It's his decision whether to raise his flag. The referee can over-rule him.

If those roles were so clearly defined, why did they need to have a conversation?

Well I suppose if the linesman could see that a player was 20 metres away from ball and keeper he wouldn't flag, but I'm sure most times the linesman flags if the ball's near someone who's offside and could be interfering and the referee then decides if he's interferring or not. If the attacked was stood straight in front of Hart but didn't touch it by your reckoning the linesman shoudn't flag.

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

Isn't the linesman's job to decide whether he's in an offside position and the referee decides if he's interfering with play?

That's why they are now referred to as Assistant Referees, they are there to do exactly that - assist the referee. He can overrule them IF in his opinion the Assistant has got a decision wrong.

What I quoted Acker - is in the laws of the game, as I was sad enough to check, the problem is the law currently is too subjective.

 

[Acker79]

What I quoted Acker - is in the laws of the game, as I was sad enough to check, the problem is the law currently is too subjective.

I copy and pasted the entire offside law and its interpretation. Where in the laws is your quote?

 

[Pavilionaire]

I was wondering whether Hart might have stood his ground expecting the player to deflect the shot rather than get out of the way, in which case Hart would have been standing in the correct place to save that deflection.

Had Gouffran done that then the linesman would almost certainly have raised his flag for offside anyway, in which case there was no point Hart standing where he was. You wonder what goes through a goalie's mind in these few seconds of action. It's very likely to me that as soon as the corner comes in and Gouffran is left in the 6-yard box there's something in Hart's mind going "He's very near to me and he's in an offside position". At the very least that's something else for him to think about, although whether it can be classed as 'interfering' is unlikely.

 

[brakespear]

He wasn't in the line of the goalkeepers sight, he didn't impede a defender, infact he was about a yard away from anybody which means he was not active. Had he touched the ball he would of been.

It was a clean goal that was wrongly disallowed.

Didn't see it until MotD but this is exactly how I saw it - the only impedance to Hart's line of sight came from the three Man City players in front of him. Alsothere was something about Hart's protestations afterwards that just looked like he knew he'd messed up big style and was desperately looking for a way out of it

 

[keaton]

I was wondering whether Hart might have stood his ground expecting the player to deflect the shot rather than get out of the way, in which case Hart would have been standing in the correct place to save that deflection.

Had Gouffran done that then the linesman would almost certainly have raised his flag for offside anyway, in which case there was no point Hart standing where he was. You wonder what goes through a goalie's mind in these few seconds of action. It's very likely to me that as soon as the corner comes in and Gouffran is left in the 6-yard box there's something in Hart's mind going "He's very near to me and he's in an offside position". At the very least that's something else for him to think about, although whether it can be classed as 'interfering' is unlikely.

I think that's where the interfering thing does get very blurred. For me, if the player wasn't there Hart would have tried to save the ball, with the striker being there he may be expecting it to deflect off him and so he reacts differently, so the striker is interfering.

There was a similiar thing a few weeks ago with Arsenal where a long ball got chipped into the box. There was a striker staning well offside behind the back four. If he wasn't there the defenders would have let the ball go through for a goal kick. Because he was there (and while they think he's offside they can't be certain) they were forced to try and clear and headed the ball to the opponents midfielder and 10 seconds later they'd scored. In that case I think the linesman should definetlely be flagging for offside