Disallowed goal for the Barcodes

[freshie]

Way I see it Gouffran was in the balls path - if he had stood still it would have hit him, so he had to move in order for it to go in, which makes him active in my book which means the decision was correct!

Exactly

[Ted Hughes]

There were THREE barcodes in offside positions, one was between Hart and the ball and another was in the six yard box preventing Hart diving across freely. The fact that the precedents are for such goals to be given is irrelevant as I think those interpretations are wrong. I've argued many times that you cannot be that close to the keeper and not interfering with play!

I was the one to mention precedence and I totally agree with you and have argued the point many times before. However, the fact that these goals are regularly given does have a baring on the subject and is very relevent.

I remember one that went for Blackburn a few years back when Dunn was clearly offside when retrieving the ball. That stood and I was fuming. There's plenty to go off and I'm sure that there was a similar situation this season when our very own Gareth Barry (for Everton) was in an offside position when the shot came in. He was stood in the line of the keeper and it even looked like he could've got a knick on the ball before it went in; he definately moved just before the ball passed him.

Either way, the ref said no goal. He's a useless twat but that'll do for me.

This is what happens.

Someone decides on their interpretation of the rules & allows a goal, then a bunch of other people decide they should interpret the rules in the same way. When someone doesn't follow a similar interpretation, they cry foul, but nobody mentions the actual rule itself.

Dermott Gallagher has just been on Sky, & he listed the criteria the ref should be looking at; did it touch the player, was he obstructing the keeper's view ? Neither happened, so it's a goal.

Someone somewhere, has decided that the part of the rule about distracting the opponent shouldn't be applied, so DG doesn't even mention it as a factor the ref should consider. If you ask "is he likely to be distracting the keeper ?", then the answer has to be 'yes' , so you don't ask the question, because the trend is not to bother about that rule.

They showed two other goals which were recently given, as examples of correct interpretation, where players stepped over the ball as it went in; they were distracting the oppo & offside as well !! What DG has just said, in effect, is that you can't be offside.

HE'S DOING IT AGAIN WITH VALENCIA NOW!! HE IS APPARENTLY ONSIDE!!

The penalty call for Liverpool was also correct but one on Hazard isn't. Fucking joke.

[dario2739]

I don't think he was interfering with the play, he was avoiding it.
The only saving grace I can think of is that he might have blocked Hart from diving for the ball, in which case he was interfering.

But by avoiding it he becomes 'active' - simply put, if he stands still it hits him, he has to move so he is interfering

[Chinners]

I don't think he was interfering with the play, he was avoiding it.
The only saving grace I can think of is that he might have blocked Hart from diving for the ball, in which case he was interfering.

Seriously fella, you need to have another look at that freezeframe if you think he wasn't interferring with play

[Tokyo Blue]

Any decent footballer would have at least attempted to get onside. The buffoon is making no attempt so he is seeking advantage by being where he is.

The ball is going to hit him if he doesn't move so clearly he is "active", therefore offside. The media interpretation varies according to the club involved, which is pathetic.

Simplifying the offside law would make the game as a whole better but would also take away the control that certain elements exert, therefore it is never going to happen.

[zuricity]

Seriously fella, you need to have another look at that freezeframe if you think he wasn't interferring with play

How does anyone know that the hit that Tiote made was a shot or a pass ?

It looked like a shot on goal but it could have been a pass to Gouffran.

I mean Jesus scored recently with a hit that looked more like a cross than a shot..

Tiote's hit was going directly to the player, a pretty accurate pass to me to a man in an offside position. We know Tiote's pass wasn't a misshit , trying to pass to players on the wing.

It really did look like a shot on goal, but it could have been a bullet pass. Just like Kolas bullet pass to Edin for the first goal. Only Kola can tell if he was attempting a pass or not.

[AG7]

I don't have any issues with the goal seriously ... give it to them, what the fuck it matters? Not like it was in the 90th minute and not like it was their winning goal ... do they seriously think that at 1-1 in 33rd minute with more than an hour to go we'd not have scored another (oh wait, we did score another) ... Issue I have is the ref fucking up the game in the second half by booking our players (Zaba) for their dives, and then not giving any punishment to their players (Cabaye, 2nd and 3rd yellows bottled and thus a red for him) ... the challenge on Nasri of course ...

Had the ref not let that mistake play on his mind all of second half (let's call it that, a mistake, and let's give them fuckers the stupid goal) ... then I don't think they;d have gotten away with all those silly challenges and with them down to 10 or 9 on the field, we'd have opened them apart and gotten them 4-1 or 5-1 ...

What should happen:

- Give the fucker a retrospective RED, and a 5 or 6 match ban perhaps for injuring a player, he was going nowhere for the ball with that second kick on Nasri's knee.

- Give Alan a hefty fine, and a touchline ban for next 3 games.

- Demote the Referee ... get him the fuck out of Premier League, he is no where near the quality required. Agian, not for getting the goal decision wrong or right, but letting that one incident play up on his mind and bowing to home crowd pressure for the rest of the game and thus allowing our players to get knocked about by them the whole game ...

Still I won't be satisfied, because Nasri is out injured ... who knows how much costly this will be as we get to the business end of the league, the more serious FA cup games to come, the final of the League cup looms, and of course the business end of the Champions League ... we are only one silly knock to Silva away from literally fighting for a quadruple to being dumped out of all four. The true cost of this to us is now known yet ... I really hope, it's not much or nothing at all and Nasri is back within 'weeks' and not months and no other key players get injured in the meanwhile either ...

[Avalon]

But by avoiding it he becomes 'active' - simply put, if he stands still it hits him, he has to move so he is interfering

If you dodge out of the way, I do not think you're becoming part of the play. You're avoiding it.

Seriously fella, you need to have another look at that freezeframe if you think he wasn't interferring with play

The only interfering I see is him stopping Hart from diving into the corner, in which case I agree he's interfering.
Otherwise, it's not Gouffran's fault for Tiote powering a ball at goal, which went through an entire defense. I don't even know if Tiote knew Gouffran was there, nor if Gouffran saw that ball coming. Hart seemed to be caught by surprise.

[bigblue]

Otherwise, it's not Gouffran's fault for Tiote powering a ball at goal, which went through an entire defense. I don't even know if Tiote knew Gouffran was there, nor if Gouffran saw that ball coming. Hart seemed to be caught by surprise.

You don't have to be conscious that you are involved in play to be involved in play.

[Socrates]

This is what happens.

Someone decides on their interpretation of the rules & allows a goal, then a bunch of other people decide they should interpret the rules in the same way. When someone doesn't follow a similar interpretation, they cry foul, but nobody mentions the actual rule itself.

Dermott Gallagher has just been on Sky, & he listed the criteria the ref should be looking at; did it touch the player, was he obstructing the keeper's view ? Neither happened, so it's a goal.

Someone somewhere, has decided that the part of the rule about distracting the opponent shouldn't be applied, so DG doesn't even mention it as a factor the ref should consider. If you ask "is he likely to be distracting the keeper ?", then the answer has to be 'yes' , so you don't ask the question, because the trend is not to bother about that rule.

They showed two other goals which were recently given, as examples of correct interpretation, where players stepped over the ball as it went in; they were distracting the oppo & offside as well !! What DG has just said, in effect, is that you can't be offside.

HE'S DOING IT AGAIN WITH VALENCIA NOW!! HE IS APPARENTLY ONSIDE!!

The penalty call for Liverpool was also correct but one on Hazard isn't. Fucking joke.

Yep, the precedents were going against the law book. A new precedent actually following the laws needs to be set! The precedents are irrelevant because they are trumped by what the laws actually say...

[City64]

It was given offside because Pardew is a cunt and a shitbag .


Newcastle Classless Cunts 0 - 2 Man City



Fuck off Pardew !

[nottsblue]

Things even themselves out. We had a goal disallowed in the 4-0. Didnt hear Pardew or the media moaning like fuck then.

[Sister of fu]

You know who has sneaked under the radar, that little shit Santon with one of the worst dives of the season. He knew Zabba was on a yellow card and still went down knowing full well he could get a fellow professional sent off.

A lot of people on Twitter we're crowing about City cheating there way again to another victory due to referee decisions in recent weeks. I'm sure cheating is little twats like Santon or Young pretending that an opponent has tripped or kicked them to gain a free kick or get someone sent off. Twat.....

[Bear60]

You know who has sneaked under the radar, that little shit Santon with one of the worst dives of the season. He knew Zabba was on a yellow card and still went down knowing full well he could get a fellow professional sent off.

A lot of people on Twitter we're crowing about City cheating there way again to another victory due to referee decisions in recent weeks. I'm sure cheating is little twats like Santon or Young pretending that an opponent has tripped or kicked them to gain a free kick or get someone sent off. Twat.....

These people on twitter crowing about City cheating must be complete knobs , The ref makes the decisions not City .

[Sideshow Bob]

You know who has sneaked under the radar, that little shit Santon with one of the worst dives of the season. He knew Zabba was on a yellow card and still went down knowing full well he could get a fellow professional sent off.

A lot of people on Twitter we're crowing about City cheating there way again to another victory due to referee decisions in recent weeks. I'm sure cheating is little twats like Santon or Young pretending that an opponent has tripped or kicked them to gain a free kick or get someone sent off. Twat.....

These people on twitter [strike]crowing about City cheating[/strike] must be complete knobs.

yes.