[Football] Not interfering with play

[Sheebo]

Again, it’s not just eyeline - if you’re standing by the keeper you’re interfering as it impedes his ability to save the shot - simple - both correct.

 

[WhingForPresident]

View attachment 140550

Graham Potter literally said we were lucky after the game for what it's worth. Not that I give a shite either way as long as we win

 

[Springal]

If he’s not interfering with play then why stand there ?

 

[jcdenton08]

Did you just cut and paste that from another thread? There's so much wrong in absolutely everything you've said there I can't even begin to think about where to start in all honesty. If I'm honest, you're already on my radar as being at best......a bit thick. At worst....A Palace troll.

Yes, I joined here 13 years ago just so I could be a troll on the Brighton fan forum in a game we won. Sterling logic. And you suggest I'm a bit thick?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Lineacre, wear your undercrackers on TV, eat your crisps and cash your cheque.

I care not one f##k.

Thanks for the win.

And as for that bellend Schmeichel, well....

 

[pb21]

Graham Potter literally said we were lucky after the game for what it's worth. Not that I give a shite either way as long as we win

Lucky that two goals were correctly ruled out for being offside or lucky that despite their relentless pressure, numerous corners and shots on goal they couldn't score another valid goal?

Edit: if its the latter I would say that you make you own luck.

 

[Hampster Gull]

Obviously all three were correct calls, the pundits are biased and dull.

 

[Icy Gull]

Obviously all three were correct calls, the pundits are biased and dull.

And one of them is an ardent wing nut eared Leicester fanatic

 

[WhingForPresident]

Lucky that two goals were correctly ruled out for being offside or lucky that despite their relentless pressure, numerous corners and shots on goal they couldn't score another valid goal?

Edit: if its the latter I would say that you make you own luck.

No idea what he meant, you'd have to ask him...

 

[Guinness Boy]

If you are standing in front of the keeper you are stopping him from seeing the ball or moving to it and therefore you are materially affecting the game. The two decisions for offside were correct.

The question is whether Potter, in a moment of crazy genius, analysed that keeper blocking was a tactic and started the zonal line ahead of Barnes to draw the offsides or whether Barns, having fallen foul of the lino once, did the same thing again, which would make him incredibly thick.

Either way, once could be lucky but twice is a pattern.

 

[Clive Walker]

if barnes is not interfering with play, why has rogers told him to stand there?

Think he intends to be in that position but onside also. Just a guess.

 

[SweatyMexican]

Both were given offside BY THE LINESMAN.

VAR is for clear and obvious errors. Judging by the reaction they weren’t clear and obvious, so we’ve got the benefit of the decisions.

I’m sorry, but we can either have exact decisions all the time, or VAR with a ‘light touch’ for the benefit of the game. Make up your mind.

 

[clapham_gull]

Both Leicester players made questionable decisions that put the onus of the officials to make another one.

Maupay clearly fouled the Leicester player, but he broke free and somewhat bizarrely attempted to handle the ball.

( The actual handball came from a header onto his flailing arm after he had missed it )

What was he doing ? Trying to stop play ? Alert the referee to the foul ? Bonkers. You are running the risk of the officials missing the foul, which they did.

As for the offsides, well it's clearly a border-line "interfering/not interfering with play" tactic that Leicester employ. It will work for them sometimes and other times not.

 

[Martlet]

Both were given offside BY THE LINESMAN.

VAR is for clear and obvious errors. Judging by the reaction they weren’t clear and obvious, so we’ve got the benefit of the decisions.

I’m sorry, but we can either have exact decisions all the time, or VAR with a ‘light touch’ for the benefit of the game. Make up your mind.

I was just about to say this - exactly.

Was it offside? Yes, that’s objective not a judgement call.
Was it interfering? The Lino clearly thought so - and VAR confirmed not a clear and obvious error.

That’s VAR working correctly in my book.

 

[drew]

Yes, I joined here 13 years ago just so I could be a troll on the Brighton fan forum in a game we won. Sterling logic. And you suggest I'm a bit thick?

But you seem to think you're above everyone else. We all know last season we didn't get the rub of the green and today we did. Think Sanchez only had one real save to make. So, whilst they were on top, they didn't create too many chances.

 

[Munkfish]

I think the first offside should have counted however the second was definitely offside.

Sanchez wasn’t getting close to either. Rode our luck but about time we had some. I’d be fuming if it was the other way round.

 

[studio150]

Bill Shankly - 'If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.'

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Steve Claridge on Sky said Barnes was too close to Sanchez both times.

 

[sant andreu]

The penalty decision could have gone either way – Maupay was doing standard penalty area pulling type things that sometimes do and sometimes don't get punished, and that's why Vestergard's arm was where it was. But that type of holding goes unpunished all the time.

The two offside decisions were a bit 'unfortunate' for Leicester but were clearly correct.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Couldn't care less boohoo Jug ears.

All decisions could have gone a different way they didn't.