LondonLax Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 He didn't interfere with the ball, it wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. He didn't interfere with Hart, Hart wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. The goal should have stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 It's not about interfering with Hart, it's about interfering with the ball. so if a striker stands on the goaline all game as long as the ball doesn't hit him he's not effecting the play and therefore not offside? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 He didn't interfere with the ball, it wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. He didn't interfere with Hart, Hart wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. The goal should have stood. He moved out of the way of the ball. If he hadn't had moved, the ball would've hit him. Interfering with the ball. It's not about interfering with Hart, it's about interfering with the ball. so if a striker stands on the goaline all game as long as the ball doesn't hit him he's not effecting the play and therefore not offside? I'm talking about in this instance, not generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 He didn't interfere with the ball, it wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. He didn't interfere with Hart, Hart wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. The goal should have stood. He moved out of the way of the ball. If he hadn't had moved, the ball would've hit him. Interfering with the ball. No, the ball was not affected by him being there, if he had been standing on the halfway line nothing would have changed with that goal. You can't be interfering with the ball if you're not affecting it in any way. The Newcastle keeper had as much affect on that goal as he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2014 Just to put this one to bed - the goal should've stood : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 He didn't interfere with the ball, it wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. He didn't interfere with Hart, Hart wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. The goal should have stood. He moved out of the way of the ball. If he hadn't had moved, the ball would've hit him. Interfering with the ball. No, the ball was not affected by him being there, if he had been standing on the halfway line nothing would have changed with that goal. You can't be interfering with the ball if you're not affecting it in any way. The Newcastle keeper had as much affect on that goal as he did. How can you say that? If he hadn't had moved the ball would've hit him. You can be interfering with the ball without touching it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 He didn't interfere with the ball, it wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. He didn't interfere with Hart, Hart wouldn't have done anything differently if he was not there. The goal should have stood. He moved out of the way of the ball. If he hadn't had moved, the ball would've hit him. Interfering with the ball. No, the ball was not affected by him being there, if he had been standing on the halfway line nothing would have changed with that goal. You can't be interfering with the ball if you're not affecting it in any way. The Newcastle keeper had as much affect on that goal as he did. How can you say that? If he hadn't had moved the ball would've hit him. You can be interfering with the ball without touching it. No you can't. The law says as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Just seen that above and read it's only been brought in this summer. But still, for me he was interfering with play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2014 Just seen that above and read it's only been brought in this summer. But still, for me he was interfering with play. Nice for you According to the rules he wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) I think that it doesn't allow for the dummying of the ball though. Sometimes they (dummies) are almost as pivotal as a pass in the move for a goal (Hazard's dummy yesterday as an example) Edited January 12, 2014 by Milfner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunRickyRun Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Just seen that above and read it's only been brought in this summer. But still, for me he was interfering with play. Wrong again. Been like this for some time now. They've been using the same diagrams in the appendix (of the laws of the game) for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 interfering with play is touching the ball interfering with an opponent is blocking his vision or preventing an opponent from playing the ball the ref can quite easily argue that gouffran is preventing hart from playing the ball, and i would agree with him, even though hart is never reaching that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 12, 2014 Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2014 I think that it doesn't allow for the dummying of the ball though. Sometimes they (dummies) are almost as pivotal as a pass in the move for a goal (Hazard's dummy yesterday as an example) I'll agree with that. It's a subtle nuance of the game where you're relying on the discretion of the officials. In this instance the player moving out of the way of the ball had no impact on the behaviour of Joe Hart so I'd expect a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonic_bouma Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Spot the non Frenchman here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 That should have been a red card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swerbs Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Disgusting challenge that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 If you're not interfering with play then you shouldn't be on the pitch. ;-P I hate the whole interfering with play rule, if you're standing in the penalty area then you're interfering with play, because defenders are thinking about where you are, you're influencing them and therefore the game. It's a stupid rule with such a big grey area things like that are always going to happen occasionally. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 If you're not interfering with play then you shouldn't be on the pitch. ;-P I hate the whole interfering with play rule, if you're standing in the penalty area then you're interfering with play, because defenders are thinking about where you are, you're influencing them and therefore the game. It's a stupid rule with such a big grey area things like that are always going to happen occasionally. exactly, and thats why for me valencia should have been given offside for utds 1st goal last night too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qwpzxjor1 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electric Avenue Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Why was that not given Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts