Disallowed goal for the Barcodes

[Ted Hughes]

Joe Hart has actually said he felt the bloke was in his way diving for the ball; that he would have crashed into him.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

Interfering or not. You decide?

Nothing to decide; it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Excellent decision referee.

[Ted Hughes]

Interfering or not. You decide?

Nothing to decide; it's as plain as the nose on your face.

Excellent decision referee.

The thing is; if Joe Hart saves that, & it goes out for a corner, they'd blow for offside, no doubt about it.

[DoomMerchant]

Joe Hart has actually said he felt the bloke was in his way diving for the ball; that he would have crashed into him.

Luckily he didn't dive for it and miss cuz he'd never gotten the offsides call.

Good day for Blondie. Well done Joe you fucler.

[zuricity]

[url="http://s722.photobucket.com/user/wozza1977/media/image_zps14a3ebbd.jpg.html"]"http://s722.photobucket.com/user/wozza1977/media/image_zps14a3ebbd.jpg.html"[/url]

Interfering or not. You decide?

Ball hit nuts .. ? I'd get out of the way.

[Mikhail Chigorin]

[url="http://s722.photobucket.com/user/wozza1977/media/image_zps14a3ebbd.jpg.html"]"http://s722.photobucket.com/user/wozza1977/media/image_zps14a3ebbd.jpg.html"[/url]

Interfering or not. You decide?

Ball hit nuts .. ? I'd get out of the way.

You're just a softie......

[ruralblue]

Ball were heading towards the player, he shies away this causing Hart confusion in that split second then its offside. Play interferred with. Easier for us to see after viewing it a few time so can understand their upset. Other way round we'd be calling for the goal.
However that decision turned them ugly and nasty which is uncalled for.

[dick dastardley]

It was disallowed because pardew is a fucking wanker of a man, and the barcodes fans are complete fucking knobheads
Full stop!!!!

[zuricity]

[url="http://s722.photobucket.com/user/wozza1977/media/image_zps14a3ebbd.jpg.html"]"http://s722.photobucket.com/user/wozza1977/media/image_zps14a3ebbd.jpg.html"[/url]

Interfering or not. You decide?

Ball hit nuts .. ? I'd get out of the way.

[zuricity]

You're just a softie......

Dead right .. do you know how many women want my children ???.

[Twobob]

It was disallowed for offside. How many players are actually allowed to stand in an offside position between the ball & the goal before it's meant to be offside ? If they had all been stood to the left or right (like the third offside player was), or behind the keeper even, then fair enough but two of them are directly in front of the ball. One of them moved to let it in. Is that not 'seeking to gain an advantage' ? If it hits him & Hart has dived, it goes in the other corner. What is Hart meant to do ? Check to see if he's offside whilst the ball is travelling & then dive, or wait to see if it hits him & then save the resulting deflection if it does ? Either way, how the fuck is it not interfering with play ? Someone explain it to me.

This is exactly why this idiotic off-side rule needs to be chucked into the same gutter that Pardew crawled out of and revert back to the original off side rule, in old money it was have been offside and no hassle. But the fuckwits at Uefa and fifa who "want to help ref's etc in such a rough job" make this fucking arseways up buggeration of an offside rule set that every fat fucking Geordie wont understand and give the twats at sky something else to bleat on about for twenty fucking minutes and half the time we cant understand what one is saying as he's a scouse gobshite.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

It was disallowed for offside. How many players are actually allowed to stand in an offside position between the ball & the goal before it's meant to be offside ? If they had all been stood to the left or right (like the third offside player was), or behind the keeper even, then fair enough but two of them are directly in front of the ball. One of them moved to let it in. Is that not 'seeking to gain an advantage' ? If it hits him & Hart has dived, it goes in the other corner. What is Hart meant to do ? Check to see if he's offside whilst the ball is travelling & then dive, or wait to see if it hits him & then save the resulting deflection if it does ? Either way, how the fuck is it not interfering with play ? Someone explain it to me.

This is exactly why this idiotic off-side rule needs to be chucked into the same gutter that Pardew crawled out of and revert back to the original off side rule, in old money it was have been offside and no hassle. But the fuckwits at Uefa and fifa who "want to help ref's etc in such a rough job" make this fucking arseways up buggeration of an offside rule set that every fat fucking Geordie wont understand and give the twats at sky something else to bleat on about for twenty fucking minutes and half the time we cant understand what one is saying as he's a scouse gobshite.

The problem with the original offside rule is do you think a 30 yard stunner should be disallowed because a teammate was standing by the corner flag?

[london blue 2]

Was a great strike though

[Twobob]

The problem with the original offside rule is do you think a 30 yard stunner should be disallowed because a teammate was standing by the corner flag?

It seemed to suffice for many years. They're called legs - you use them to shift.

[gmercer1]

Was a great strike though

wasted when 3 of your team mates are to slow to get back onside ;)

[Mikhail Chigorin]

You're just a softie......

Dead right .. do you know how many women want my children ???.

I've lost my abacus so I couldn't possibly calculate how many.

I'm sure it must be a sizeable number though.

[Bridge'srightfoot]

The problem with the original offside rule is do you think a 30 yard stunner should be disallowed because a teammate was standing by the corner flag?

It seemed to suffice for many years. They're called legs - you use them to shift.

It didn't though, which is why they changed the rule.
According to that rule both of Dzeko's goals against West Ham should have been chalked off as Kolarov and Clichy were the furthest men forward. So you think every time a player gets to the byline for a pullback, the goal should be disallowed if they are the furthest forward when the shot's being taken?

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

It was disallowed and rightly so. Yes, we'd have been mad as hell if it'd happened to us, but we'd have been wrong. As is Pardew, the undignified prick.

[zuricity]

I've lost my abacus so I couldn't possibly calculate how many.

I'm sure it must be a sizeable number though.

Damn right ... i keep fighting them off.

[Twobob]

It didn't though, which is why they changed the rule. According to that rule both of Dzeko's goals against West Ham should have been chalked off as Kolarov and Clichy were the furthest men forward. So you think every time a player gets to the byline for a pullback, the goal should be disallowed if they are the furthest forward when the shot's being taken?

It changed to make things more 'exciting' which is has, admittedly, but its still wrong. We wont go through every goal that may/ not have stood nor every conceivable mix of probable scenarios that could result in offside or not. Regardless to say most of the rule is interpretation by the officials, how many times have we, and often the sky clan, thought a player should have been offside for interfering and yet the goal given and no offside? Plenty. Again its a change that, in my opinion has caused more controversy and shite than goals not being given when they crossed the line... And yet they just stick with it.