Ernest
Stupid IDIOT
This ref has Pardew SEETHING with ANGER
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Newcastle v Man City
- Thread starter Ernest
- Start date
Chicken Runner61
We stand where we want!
- May 20, 2007
- 4,609
PARDEW needs a coat today can you LEND him ONE?
symyjym
Banned
This ref disallowed a great goal
¡Cereal Killer!
Whale Oil Beef Hooked
Can see this game ending with at least one red card.
Chicken Runner61
We stand where we want!
- May 20, 2007
- 4,609
He will even it up next half by sending Hart off
KJP
Well-known member
Never offside
banjo
GOSBTS
Would be vey p@#*ed off if it was us. Only Newcastle he ho !
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
Sorry but I think the refs right - a player moving out of the way of a ball going towards goal surely means he's in play? Which means it was the correct decision? 
Sorry but I think the refs right - a player moving out of the way of a ball going towards goal surely means he's in play? Which means it was the correct decision?
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.
Chicken Runner61
We stand where we want!
- May 20, 2007
- 4,609
It sounds like it hit a man city player on the way but its a hard one for the officials to call without replays
The_Viper
Well-known member
Dunno how they're impeding, the ball is flying into top corner, Hart knew he weren't having it so didn't even seem to bother diving for it. Seems an absolutely shocking decision.
Technically the issue isn't were they offside, there were three players in an offside position. The issues is were they interfering with play, interfering with an opponent, or gaining an advantage by being in that position.
When I first saw the replay I thought the ball went through a Newcastle player, and they were right, but the second replay showed he wasn't in hart's line of sight. There's the possibility that the other player in the peripheral of hart's vision made him think he had defenders covering that side of the goal, but would peripheral vision count? I don't think so, and hart did only point to the one in front of him.
On reflection I'd say the ref and linesmen were trying to consider the above - that while they weren't interfering with play they may have been interfering with the opponents. So I would say it was an honest mistake (how often can three people be in offside position inside the six yard box and not interfere with the keeper?), but a mistake nonetheless.
In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following defi nitions apply:
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means 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
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is defl ected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is defl ected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.
• “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head,
body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this defi nition
• “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or
touched by a team-mate
• “interfering with an opponent” means 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
• “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
i. that rebounds or is defl ected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
ii. that rebounds, is defl ected or is played to him from a deliberate save
by an opponent having been in an offside position
A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who
deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered
to have gained an advantage.
When I first saw the replay I thought the ball went through a Newcastle player, and they were right, but the second replay showed he wasn't in hart's line of sight. There's the possibility that the other player in the peripheral of hart's vision made him think he had defenders covering that side of the goal, but would peripheral vision count? I don't think so, and hart did only point to the one in front of him.
On reflection I'd say the ref and linesmen were trying to consider the above - that while they weren't interfering with play they may have been interfering with the opponents. So I would say it was an honest mistake (how often can three people be in offside position inside the six yard box and not interfere with the keeper?), but a mistake nonetheless.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
That's not the question, it's whether the person who moved out of the way of the ball is deemed to be involved in play, I think it's a extremely tough one for the referee. For example if you have a shot, and someone clearly in an offside position jumps over the ball as it goes into the net, is he in play? (Not what happened here but it shows how difficult it could be to interpret the rules. If that's offside, this one was too.
Bladders
Twats everywhere
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.
The Wizard
Well-known member
- Jul 2, 2009
- 18,401
Him having to move out the way of the ball surely goes against him not being 'active'? I still think it was a very tough decision anyway, it's easy for us with slow mo replays, initially I even thought he knicked it. It's a 50/50 call IMO, I can see an argument for both sides.
Bladders
Twats everywhere
He moved out of the way of the ball in order NOT to be active, its not even a difficult decision when you see it back.
HAILSHAM SEAGULL
Well-known member
- Nov 9, 2009
- 10,359
Jones has lost control of this match, some of Newcastles tackles are x rated.
Disgraceful.
The hack at Nasri should be a straight red
Disgraceful.
The hack at Nasri should be a straight red
No it doesn't.
Joe Hart was beaten all ends up, Gouffran didn't satisfy either of the 2 rules to be deemed interfering. It was the wrong decision.
He's had a shocking game, and it's quite obvious he's trying to even it up, otherwise Cabaye would've been sent off half an hour ago.