Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
Socks

Watfords first goal not offside

Recommended Posts

Posted

I'm pretty sure the 'benefit of doubt to attacker' rule has been taken away and reworded under Fifa's latest mandate. At least that's what a ref told me the other week when I asked him on it

Posted

I'm pretty sure the 'benefit of doubt to attacker' rule has been taken away and reworded under Fifa's latest mandate. At least that's what a ref told me the other week when I asked him on it

He disallowed your goal then :P

Posted

thought it was the feet?

 

As has been said - any part of the body that can be scored with (so, not hand or arm) - and his upper body is beyond the defence: offside.

Posted

As has been said - any part of the body that can be scored with (so, not hand or arm) - and his upper body is beyond the defence: offside.

I can't believe some of the crazy talk, it's clearly onside! if you look at that photo, the balls in the air, so it's paused a couple of frames too late, couple that with the speed forestieri was moving at, and the fact Weseleskis foot is nearer to the goal and it's 100% onside. how can't people see that?

Posted

Apologies for calling him fabrini. My knowledge knows no bounds

I can't believe some of the crazy talk, it's clearly onside! if you look at that photo, the balls in the air, so it's paused a couple of frames too late, couple that with the speed forestieri was moving at, and the fact Weseleskis foot is nearer to the goal and it's 100% onside. how can't people see that?

agreed

Posted

I can't believe some of the crazy talk, it's clearly onside! if you look at that photo, the balls in the air, so it's paused a couple of frames too late, couple that with the speed forestieri was moving at, and the fact Weseleskis foot is nearer to the goal and it's 100% onside. how can't people see that?

 

lol

 

Behave - it's a lot closer than it looked in real time., but his torso is beyond Was from that angle (not the best angle in fairness) - there's no way it's "100% onside". It looks just off. It's a lot tougher call than it appeared, and perhaps benefit of the doubt would give it to the diving twat, but benefit of the doubt isn't in the rules, that is marginal but off.

Guest MarshallForEngland
Posted

lol

 

Behave - it's a lot closer than it looked in real time., but his torso is beyond Was from that angle (not the best angle in fairness) - there's no way it's "100% onside". It looks just off. It's a lot tougher call than it appeared, and perhaps benefit of the doubt would give it to the diving twat, but benefit of the doubt isn't in the rules, that is marginal but off.

 

What's his torso got to do with it? Wasil's foot is closer to the goal than any part of Forestieri's body.

Posted

What's his torso got to do with it? Wasil's foot is closer to the goal than any part of Forestieri's body.

 

Can you score with your chest, head or stomach? Yes - so the torso is counted when considering offside. I don't think it is, was has his foot quite back, but it looks like Floorestieri has his upper body beyond that.

Posted

lol

Behave - it's a lot closer than it looked in real time., but his torso is beyond Was from that angle (not the best angle in fairness) - there's no way it's "100% onside". It looks just off. It's a lot tougher call than it appeared, and perhaps benefit of the doubt would give it to the diving twat, but benefit of the doubt isn't in the rules, that is marginal but off.

I agree
Posted

Can you score with your chest, head or stomach? Yes - so the torso is counted when considering offside. I don't think it is, was has his foot quite back, but it looks like Floorestieri has his upper body beyond that.

post-11668-0-43328200-1391945841_thumb.j

I hate to say, I told you so. I told you so.

Posted

Yeah he's onside. More by luck than judgement though as he's clearly running in to follow up the shot and ends up being hit by the ball and deflecting it in. The linesman looks like he's given them the benefit of the doubt. No idea what the rules say on that but it's the right decision imo.

Posted

Yeah he's onside. More by luck than judgement though as he's clearly running in to follow up the shot and ends up being hit by the ball and deflecting it in. The linesman looks like he's given them the benefit of the doubt. No idea what the rules say on that but it's the right decision imo.

uhmm, I think the rules say he's onside, so it's not benefit of the doubt, it's onside.

Posted

I didn't see it live but have seen replays and these pictures and he is clearly onside. Wtf are you all on about. I watched the FLS before coming on here an offside didn't even enter my mind until about 400 threads on here.

And the assistant couldn't be any more bang in line looking at the still 2 or 3 posts up.

He scored, get over it.

Posted

attachicon.gifimage.jpg

I hate to say, I told you so. I told you so.

 

 

Still looks offside.

 

Wasul and De Laet and standing square whereas I think Forrestieri's arm, chest and head is off.

Posted

That's offside albeit just IMO

 

 

Even if it is it's not by any margin that any official could see for sure at the pace it was happening. He made the right decision by refusing to give what he couldn't see or judge for certain.    

Posted

Still looks offside.

Wasul and De Laet and standing square whereas I think Forrestieri's arm, chest and head is off.

haha wind up merchant.

Posted

Even if it is it's not by any margin that any official could see for sure at the pace it was happening. He made the right decision by refusing to give what he couldn't see or judge for certain.    

 

Agree with this.

 

Also the point that with very tight (and therefore difficult) decisions you have to take the rough with the smooth, some will go for you and some against.  If Nando WAS offside then we got a lucky break.  In the same way you got a lucky break at our place when Chris Wood caught a clearance in the chops and it rebounded into the net. 

 

Cracking, mental game though, as many of our games have been in recent years.  You won't get crazy sh!t like that in the Prem...

Posted

haha wind up merchant.

 

 

Just my opinion, which I have just as much a right to express as you.

 

Still, it doesn't matter. The linesman didn't give it and that's that.

Posted

In real time..a difficult call,from the slow mo and the pics..I say he's onside as the ball is played.

Defensive error?..I don't think it was.

I think they saw Deeney shape up for a shot and stood their ground to block most of the goal.

Forrestieri just looked to be running on for a rebound and got lucky and reacted fast to adjust his head.

I think Schmeichel had the initial shot covered..that's just football for you.

More concerned about the defence for their 2nd.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...