villa4europe Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: He’s a good metre away though. What’s the cut off point? He’s not getting it either way. His own defender is interfering more. He's not a metre away and he's directly in the path of the ball, to save that shot he would magically dive through him Him not getting ot either way has never ever been any part of any offside rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 31 minutes ago, Django_Zooms said: Well, they do also have Murphy, Richards, McFadden & Jenas. Radio 5 have Clinton Morrison, there’s not much lower you can go. Without being a limbo dancer. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDR V2 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 2 minutes ago, villa4europe said: That's not the rule though The rule is impacts his ability to play the ball Of course he does look where he's stood! The ball had hit the net before the goalie moved his feet. I doubt he even knew the defender was there as he'd be looking ahead and not sideways.... our refs do this all the time, they are desperate to make the headlines and disallow perfectly good goals. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 5 minutes ago, PieFacE said: Just his presence there is enough to impact the goalkeepers thinking and actions. He didn't impede him but definitely interfered. Exactly. I really wanted it to count but clearly the player standing in the offside position right next for the GK is having an effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted June 21 VT Supporter Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: He's not a metre away and he's directly in the path of the ball, to save that shot he would magically dive through him Him not getting ot either way has never ever been any part of any offside rule He’s absolutely not in the direct path of the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, Talldarkandransome said: The ball had hit the net before the goalie moved his feet. I doubt he even knew the defender was there as he'd be looking ahead and not sideways.... our refs do this all the time, they are desperate to make the headlines and disallow perfectly good goals. The worlds gone mad He's offside, people's perception of the these rules now is ****, if this was Sunday league or power league or the school playground you're all just having that as a goal? Not in the 30 odd years I've played you wouldn't, not a chance in hell they just need to go back to offside is offside, no phases no interfering just put him as offside and be done with it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imavillan Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 (edited) 4 minutes ago, rjw63 said: Radio 5 have Clinton Morrison, there’s not much lower you can go. Without being a limbo dancer. mate Edited June 21 by imavillan as he's a dirty nose i forgot the obligatory mate.......mate 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django_Zooms Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Arsene Wenger & David Dein sitting next to each other in the posh seats. Expect the Dutch to bring on Bergkamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDR V2 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, villa4europe said: The worlds gone mad He's offside, people's perception of the these rules now is ****, if this was Sunday league or power league or the school playground you're all just having that as a goal? Not in the 30 odd years I've played you wouldn't, not a chance in hell they just need to go back to offside is offside, no phases no interfering just put him as offside and be done with it Totally and utterly yes, but they have made it so complicated now it's impossible. And I'll always favour the goal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WallisFrizz Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: they just need to go back to offside is offside, no phases no interfering just put him as offside and be done with it Well that maybe so but the interfering rule does exist which is why people are arguing it. It’s surprising you think it is so straight forward as that goalie was beaten regardless of whether someone was stood next to him or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekka Posted June 21 VT Supporter Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, imavillan said: I'm sure he'll find a ladder. Ba-dum-tisssssssssss. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: He's not a metre away and he's directly in the path of the ball, to save that shot he would magically dive through him Him not getting ot either way has never ever been any part of any offside rule It does indirectly because of interference. How can you be interfering with something that isn't possible? I've tried to show with some poor cropping below. The top image is as the ball has been hit. The goalkeeper is just about getting to his feet again having dived to save the first shot. The second image is the ball already past the goalkeeper as he manages to stumble to his feet. At no point can he make a dive. At no point is his view blocked. Dumfries hasn't done anything to impact that shot going into the net. It's not the worst decision in the World, but it should be a goal IMO. If it shouldn't be, I'd question what the actual point of the offside rule is. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, Talldarkandransome said: Totally and utterly yes, but they have made it so complicated now it's impossible. And I'll always favour the goal And rightfully so but we be fuming if that was given against us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, bobzy said: It does indirectly because of interference. How can you be interfering with something that isn't possible? I've tried to show with some poor cropping below. The top image is as the ball has been hit. The goalkeeper is just about getting to his feet again having dived to save the first shot. The second image is the ball already past the goalkeeper as he manages to stumble to his feet. At no point can he make a dive. At no point is his view blocked. Dumfries hasn't done anything to impact that shot going into the net. It's not the worst decision in the World, but it should be a goal IMO. If it shouldn't be, I'd question what the actual point of the offside rule is. He is is next to the keeper and way he is looking. Its interfering regardless if keeper dives or not If Dumfries is the other side then is no issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django_Zooms Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 4 minutes ago, villa4europe said: The worlds gone mad He's offside, people's perception of the these rules now is ****, if this was Sunday league or power league or the school playground you're all just having that as a goal? Not in the 30 odd years I've played you wouldn't, not a chance in hell they just need to go back to offside is offside, no phases no interfering just put him as offside and be done with it Similarly, people with a penis can declare themselves to be girls and people with a vagina can declare themselves to be boys and Tories can declare that they only selflessly act in the public interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, bobzy said: It does indirectly because of interference. How can you be interfering with something that isn't possible? I've tried to show with some poor cropping below. The top image is as the ball has been hit. The goalkeeper is just about getting to his feet again having dived to save the first shot. The second image is the ball already past the goalkeeper as he manages to stumble to his feet. At no point can he make a dive. At no point is his view blocked. Dumfries hasn't done anything to impact that shot going into the net. It's not the worst decision in the World, but it should be a goal IMO. If it shouldn't be, I'd question what the actual point of the offside rule is. He's stopped the keeper diving to his left He directly in between the keeper and the ball, he is making it impossible to save it Him not being able to save it anyway is not the rule, he has impacted his ability to play the ball The rule is broken but that is the right decision 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TDR V2 Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, Zatman said: And rightfully so but we be fuming if that was given against us We've had much worse than that disallowed, and by the same useless ref. If Emi was the goalie and was able to see that ball, he would have dived and taken the defender out with the ball Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 Just now, Zatman said: He is is next to the keeper and way he is looking. Its interfering regardless if keeper dives or not If Dumfries is the other side then is no issue But he can't dive. It's impossible for him to dive, which is why he doesn't. He can't get the ball. He can't even get Dumfries. I'm curious... if he had stayed down after the first save instead of stumbling up, do you think offside should be given? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 1 minute ago, villa4europe said: He's stopped the keeper diving to his left He directly in between the keeper and the ball, he is making it impossible to save it Him not being able to save it anyway is not the rule, he has impacted his ability to play the ball The rule is broken but that is the right decision I guess this is my main ire. He hasn't stopped the keeper diving to his left. The keeper can't do it. If he could and did, then the attacker blocks him and it's offside. But he can't and doesn't so the attacker isn't having any impact. As I say, though, not the worst decision or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted June 21 Share Posted June 21 4 minutes ago, WallisFrizz said: Well that maybe so but the interfering rule does exist which is why people are arguing it. It’s surprising you think it is so straight forward as that goalie was beaten regardless of whether someone was stood next to him or not. It is straight forward Unfortunately I see debates like this and then the goal real Madrid scored in the CL semi final and to me the offside rule and the way people are talking about seems devoid of common sense If you were playing, if you were a defender or a keeper playing Sunday league you'd be **** fuming if that was given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts