Haydos Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Going back to the Tiote 'goal' I've seen a post on another forum saying the offside rule has been updated to allow for situations like this. I didn't realise this earlier and clearly it affects my stance. "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" As this clearly absolves Gouffran from blame I guess this is objectively a goal. Fair play to the people that knew this (although I suspect nobody did as nobody mentioned it )
Fox92 Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 S A S. Great victory that one. Stoke is usually seen as a tough place to go, but regardless of that, to score 5 away from home at any level is excellent.
Uncle Albert Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Second time we've scored 5 away from home this season, just work on the defending and maybe add two players this window and I seriously think we will be in the top four come May, well hopefully anyway.
theessexfox Posted 12 January 2014 Posted 12 January 2014 Stoke haven't changed a bit. Ok they've scored 2 good goals but they've been absolute shite and have just resorted to taking out Suarez and his teammates whenever they take them on. The ref is letting them get away with it too. No doubt Hughes will blame the result on the ref if they lose as usual. I'm not sure why Quinn is trying to make out that was a soft penalty. Because it was the softest penalty going?
Corky Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 This could run for a bit. Puncheon v Warnock. http://www.101greatgoals.com/blog/jason-puncheon-takes-to-twitter-to-accuse-neil-warnock-of-being-crooked/
RobHawk Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 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. Didn't see the game and have only seen this GIF (so not the best placed to comment) but i'd call that offside all day long! For me its the fact that Gouffran makes the sudden movement towards the ball that would be reason for him to be offside. Interesting one though. I saw the bad tackle on the news which was a definate red. Pardew's a bit of a cnutface though isn't he!
Father Ted Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 I'm in two minds about that offside call but for me it was the correct decision! Hart could have saved that and in my opinion would have dived had Gouffran not been stood there - hence Gouffran standing in an offside position ultimately affected Joe Hart's ability to save the shot. Serves Gouffran right for being a lazy cnut.
Kitchandro Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Because it was the softest penalty going? Is legging someone up a soft penalty now?
RowlattsFox Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Didn't see the game and have only seen this GIF (so not the best placed to comment) but i'd call that offside all day long! For me its the fact that Gouffran makes the sudden movement towards the ball that would be reason for him to be offside. Interesting one though. I saw the bad tackle on the news which was a definate red. Pardew's a bit of a cnutface though isn't he! Towards the ball?? Ducks out the way of it. On the replay I seen the Lino didn't have his flag up straight away, so that says to me that mike jones has made the decision as to whether he was active and asked the Lino if he was in a offside position.
RobHawk Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Towards the ball?? Ducks out the way of it. On the replay I seen the Lino didn't have his flag up straight away, so that says to me that mike jones has made the decision as to whether he was active and asked the Lino if he was in a offside position. Looked to me like he moved toweards it but hard to tell on the GIF, either way if he ducks out of the way of it then he was originally in the way of it! Still offside in my book!
Haydos Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Didn't see the game and have only seen this GIF (so not the best placed to comment) but i'd call that offside all day long! For me its the fact that Gouffran makes the sudden movement towards the ball that would be reason for him to be offside. Interesting one though. I saw the bad tackle on the news which was a definate red. Pardew's a bit of a cnutface though isn't he! That's why I mentioned the ruling earlier on. Apparently by law, him being in that particilar position IS NOT offside. The law states line of sight or challenging for the ball. I guess professional players should be aware of this and not pay mind to players in offside positions. He may be a slight distraction but the law states that he isn't offside so as far as I'm aware there isn't much argument, unless you're arguing for another change in the law
Haydos Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Towards the ball?? Ducks out the way of it. On the replay I seen the Lino didn't have his flag up straight away, so that says to me that mike jones has made the decision as to whether he was active and asked the Lino if he was in a offside position. This is the odd thing, the ref knows (or should know) the law which deems that you must be in line of sight or challenging. Gouffran doesn't fit either of these and the referee was in a perfect position to see this.
RobHawk Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 This is the odd thing, the ref knows (or should know) the law which deems that you must be in line of sight or challenging. Gouffran doesn't fit either of these and the referee was in a perfect position to see this. I guess it would come down to exactly what "in line of sight" meant within the ruling. If you are between the ball and the goalkeeper even if not in the DIRECT line of sight, does that still count. If he ducked out of the way of the ball he would at some point of been in line of sight even if just for a split second. More than anything though i think the difference in opinions in this thread show that it wasn't an injustice and that pardew id just mardy fooker!
MC Prussian Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Nasri now out for roughly two months with knee ligament damage: http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/25705409
Sharpe's Fox Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Chance for Milner to stop being a bit of a joke and show everyone what he can do.
MC Prussian Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Now that went quick - two goals for Arsenal in the space of - what? - 60 seconds.
Unabomber Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 That pass from Ozil to Monreal for the first goal was absolute class. They're playing some fantastic stuff tonight.
Benji Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 How does Wenger still not know how to do up a coat.
MC Prussian Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 I had to giggle a bit when I saw Mertesacker in a striker role towards the end of the first half - Villa must be pretty shit then.
Kitchandro Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 There's something I really don't like about watching matches at Villa Park. I'm not sure if it's their frustratingly dull side or the terrible atmosphere, or the fact that Villa fans seem really miserable and angry at their team or the ref all the while. Or maybe it's their kit, or the ugly colour of the stadium where the patches of empty seats are, or the fact everyone is sitting down. I don't know but it hurts my head watching it, like when matches at Stamford Bridge are on.
purpleronnie Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 There's something I really don't like about watching matches at Villa Park. I'm not sure if it's their frustratingly dull side or the terrible atmosphere, or the fact that Villa fans seem really miserable and angry at their team or the ref all the while. Or maybe it's their kit, or the ugly colour of the stadium where the patches of empty seats are, or the fact everyone is sitting down. I don't know but it hurts my head watching it, like when matches at Stamford Bridge are on. Yep villa seem to be one of the few clubs wear standing is on the decrease. It is a terrible atmosphere, wasn't always like that though. I'm sure watching them play terribly dull football with various managers doesn't help much.
Kitchandro Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Yep villa seem to be one of the few clubs wear standing is on the decrease. Always a terrible atmosphere, wasn't always like that though. I'm sure watching them play terribly dull football with various managers doesn't help much. Aye. At least last year they had Benteke, this year he's been wank and they just have nothing. It's annoying to watch them with the ball as it's clear they've got no ideas.
bovril Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 Fair play to Villa they've battered them this half.
Corky Posted 13 January 2014 Posted 13 January 2014 There's something I really don't like about watching matches at Villa Park. I'm not sure if it's their frustratingly dull side or the terrible atmosphere, or the fact that Villa fans seem really miserable and angry at their team or the ref all the while. Or maybe it's their kit, or the ugly colour of the stadium where the patches of empty seats are, or the fact everyone is sitting down. I don't know but it hurts my head watching it, like when matches at Stamford Bridge are on. They've got nothing to get excited about at all at Villa Park, just weekly defeats and disappointment. Not that it takes much for Villa fans to get on their teams' cases.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.