foxfanazer Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 If that disallowed goal costs me my £430 bet I'll be fuming!
The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 The ref and lino got that right IMO. 3 in an offside position and arguably 2 interfering/impeding Harts vision. Tough call to make, but for me the right one.
Corky Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 The Newcastle player was moving away from the ball, Hart only seemed to notice him after the ball had gone in. We've seen it before when players are genuinely standing in front of the keeper and goal is given.
Jimothy Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 The ref and lino got that right IMO. 3 in an offside position and arguably 2 interfering/impeding Harts vision. Tough call to make, but for me the right one. None of them are in Harts line of vision. Look at where Goufrann is from the angle right behind the shot, he's almost outside the post. Anyway, nobody was saving that, impeded or not! Very poor IMO.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 If that disallowed goal costs me my £430 bet I'll be fuming! Had puncheon of scored that peno and bolton had won I'd have been 1700 up
Unabomber Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 They clearly got it wrong, he wasn't saving that regardless.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 None of them are in Harts line of vision. Look at where Goufrann is from the angle right behind the shot, he's almost outside the post. Anyway, nobody was saving that, impeded or not! Very poor IMO. I can't be arsed to rewind it. I take your point that noone was saving it. I suppose when the ref can't check video replay (not that I'm advocating it) and the lino has told him there were 3 players offside, perhaps they just assumed at least one was blocking Harts vision? Though that begs the question as to why the lino didn't flag immediately
Matt Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 So whose going to be in this years bottom three? For me: Fulham, Norwich & Crystal Palace (though i wouldn't rule out Palace getting out, but at the moment there lacking experience and quality in the team) Hopefully Villa will be one of them. As for the disallowed Newcastle goal, shocking, can't say much more.
Haydos Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Right, here's the gif (Fvck knows what the url is about ) While you could argue Hart is planted, it does look like he sees their player (Goufran?) and he could be thinking he's going to do something with it. I think this is where the problem is with this rule. It does happen rarely but there's no way of saying how a player interprets someone standing in an offside position. You could also say that the rule has been changed long enough now that you should just ignore players in an offside position know that they'll be penalised if they do touch the ball.
The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Right, here's the gif (Fvck knows what the url is about ) While you could argue Hart is planted, it does look like he sees their player (Goufran?) and he could be thinking he's going to do something with it. I think this is where the problem is with this rule. It does happen rarely but there's no way of saying how a player interprets someone standing in an offside position. You could also say that the rule has been changed long enough now that you should just ignore players in an offside position know that they'll be penalised if they do touch the ball. Exactly. They've dicked around with the rule all too often. It'd be much more black and white if they ditched the 'interfering' with play malarkey.
Des. Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 I think its Gouffran's movement away from the ball that makes the ref change the decision, as stupid as it is.
StanSP Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 That's a shocking decision. Never that should be disallowed. Gouffran's on the other side of Hart and so how does he cross his line of vision?? Gouffran's gone to avoid the ball as well.
Des. Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 That's a shocking decision. Never that should be disallowed. Gouffran's on the other side of Hart and so how does he cross his line of vision?? Gouffran's gone to avoid the ball as well. I think somewhere in the ref's mind he feels that Gouffran's position impedes Hart's chance to make a dive for the ball?
Guest ttfn Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 I think that's offside. Edit:Actually I've changed my mind!
The Year Of The Fox Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 I think somewhere in the ref's mind he feels that Gouffran's position impedes Hart's chance to make a dive for the ball? Also true. It's a tough call but one the officials had to make there and then. We could debate it for weeks and never all agree.
Jimothy Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Hatem Ben Arfa must be the most frustrating footballer ever. Has tons of ability, but is so poor at making decisions. Always tries do it alone.
Haydos Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 That's a shocking decision. Never that should be disallowed. Gouffran's on the other side of Hart and so how does he cross his line of vision?? Gouffran's gone to avoid the ball as well. Is it though? Without the laws to hand it's difficult to say so for sake of argument it's subjective. Gouf is in line with the balls flight and Hart may or may not be distracted with Gouf being in the way.
TheUltimateWinner Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Newcastle wouldn't have to throw players forward if that decision had stood. Ref ruined the game, absolute shambles.
Haydos Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Newcastle wouldn't have to throw players forward if that decision had stood. Ref ruined the game, absolute shambles. Assuming you're talking about the disallowed goal, do you have any argument why it's obvious/the refs fault and not just laws that don't cater to that exact situation?
Kitchandro Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Absolutely nothing wrong with that goal. None of them are in Harts line of vision, none of them touch it. Shockingly bad. I disagree, I think by the letter of the law he was right to make that decision. It's not just if the players are in his eyeline, it's also about whether he was distracted by players getting a potential touch on it. At least 2 of the 3 Newcastle players were in a position to get a vital deflection, and had they not been there it could be argued Hart would have dived for it and had a chance of saving it. That only needs to be a possibility for the officials to rule it out. However, it's a bit of a shambles that a goal like that is ruled offside. Offside is surely implemented so that there is no goal hanging, but that goal was just a pure brilliance and was disallowed on a technicality. I feel if goals like that are getting disallowed there needs to be a rule change.
The Blur Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 An over-exaggeration from everyone on Twitter re Tiote's goal. It is a lovely hit but hardly the goal of of the season.
Langston Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 I don't blame referees, I blame the offside rule which has become ridiculously convoluted. Just make it daylight again, goals, goals, goals.
Kitchandro Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 On another note, the referee completely bottled it with that tackle on Nasri. He's hacked him at the knee, twice, with no attempt to get the ball, and Nasri's gone off on a stretcher. What the fvck is he playing at? It's only because the Newcastle fans were on his back that he let him get away with that. Referees make so many decisions on fan reaction.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.