Jump to content

Weekends 11/12 Jan


andykeenan

Recommended Posts

Gouffran is ducking to avoid the ball. Certainly can see why they'd think he was active.

Nothing in the rules about being 'active'

 

The rules in this case are pretty clear cut. They're explained in detail in the appendix to the laws of the game. I guess pundits don't read the rules and people listen to them.

 

The only possible grey area with the decision is whether Goufran impeded Hart's attempt or possible attempt to get the ball. In this case he was nowhere near him.

Edited by RunRickyRun
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Gouffran is ducking to avoid the ball. Certainly can see why they'd think he was active.

Nothing in the rules about being 'active'

 

The rules in this case are pretty clear cut. They're explained in detailin the appendix to the laws of the game. I guess pundits don't read the rules and people listen to them.

 

The only possible grey area with the decision is whether Goufran impeded Hart's attempt or possible attempt to get the ball. In this case he was nowhere near him.

 

 

As I explained in the post afterwards, Hart takes a split second to see where Gouffran is standing, it clearly impacted on his decision not to dive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Gouffran is ducking to avoid the ball. Certainly can see why they'd think he was active.

Nothing in the rules about being 'active'

 

The rules in this case are pretty clear cut. They're explained in detailin the appendix to the laws of the game. I guess pundits don't read the rules and people listen to them.

 

The only possible grey area with the decision is whether Goufran impeded Hart's attempt or possible attempt to get the ball. In this case he was nowhere near him.

 

 

As I explained in the post afterwards, Hart takes a split second to see where Gouffran is standing, it clearly impacted on his decision not to dive.

 

Again, that's not in the laws of the game. Being in the corner of a player's eye does not make a player offside, The player has to be "obstructing the line of vision" of a defender/goalkeeper to count as being offside.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Gouffran is ducking to avoid the ball. Certainly can see why they'd think he was active.

Nothing in the rules about being 'active'

 

The rules in this case are pretty clear cut. They're explained in detailin the appendix to the laws of the game. I guess pundits don't read the rules and people listen to them.

 

The only possible grey area with the decision is whether Goufran impeded Hart's attempt or possible attempt to get the ball. In this case he was nowhere near him.

 

 

As I explained in the post afterwards, Hart takes a split second to see where Gouffran is standing, it clearly impacted on his decision not to dive.

 

Again, that's not in the laws of the game. Being in the corner of a player's eye does not make a player offside, The player has to be "obstructing the line of vision" of a defender/goalkeeper to count as being offside.

 

 

no it doesnt, the law says the player can either be blocking the line of vision or movement towards the ball

 

therefore you can argue gouffran being stood there makes hart think twice about diving

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

no it doesnt, the law says the player can either be blocking the line of vision or movement towards the ball

 

therefore you can argue gouffran being stood there makes hart think twice about diving

 

They're two different arguments. If you're arguing that he's offside because he's moving towards the ball then that's one thing (and you'd be wrong)

 

He's not in the line of Hart's vision nor is he blocking a dive, therefore he's not offside. It doesn't matter whether Hart thinks he's offside or not. The rules make no concession for this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Gouffran is ducking to avoid the ball. Certainly can see why they'd think he was active.

Nothing in the rules about being 'active'

 

The rules in this case are pretty clear cut. They're explained in detailin the appendix to the laws of the game. I guess pundits don't read the rules and people listen to them.

 

The only possible grey area with the decision is whether Goufran impeded Hart's attempt or possible attempt to get the ball. In this case he was nowhere near him.

 

 

As I explained in the post afterwards, Hart takes a split second to see where Gouffran is standing, it clearly impacted on his decision not to dive.

 

Again, that's not in the laws of the game. Being in the corner of a player's eye does not make a player offside, The player has to be "obstructing the line of vision" of a defender/goalkeeper to count as being offside.

 

 

no it doesnt, the law says the player can either be blocking the line of vision or movement towards the ball

 

therefore you can argue gouffran being stood there makes hart think twice about diving

 

 

If Hart decides not to dive that is Hart's silly fault. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

no it doesnt, the law says the player can either be blocking the line of vision or movement towards the ball

 

therefore you can argue gouffran being stood there makes hart think twice about diving

 

They're two different arguments. If you're arguing that he's offside because he's moving towards the ball then that's one thing (and you'd be wrong)

 

He's not in the line of Hart's vision nor is he blocking a dive, therefore he's not offside. It doesn't matter whether Hart thinks he's offside or not. The rules make no concession for this.

 

 

im arguing that he's about a metre and a bit away from hart and pretty much in the trajectory of where hart will be diving, if that isn't classed as blocking a movement towards the ball then i don't know what is

 

im arguing that hart doesnt dive because gouffran is there, which by the rules means he's offside, and im assuming the ref has come to the same decision

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

no it doesnt, the law says the player can either be blocking the line of vision or movement towards the ball

 

therefore you can argue gouffran being stood there makes hart think twice about diving

 

They're two different arguments. If you're arguing that he's offside because he's moving towards the ball then that's one thing (and you'd be wrong)

 

He's not in the line of Hart's vision nor is he blocking a dive, therefore he's not offside. It doesn't matter whether Hart thinks he's offside or not. The rules make no concession for this.

 

 

im arguing that he's about a metre and a bit away from hart and pretty much in the trajectory of where hart will be diving, if that isn't classed as blocking a movement towards the ball then i don't know what is

 

im arguing that hart doesnt dive because gouffran is there, which by the rules means he's offside, and im assuming the ref has come to the same decision

 

 

That is pretty much what I see, Hart even points straight to Gouffran as soon as it goes in. He clearly watched the ball and I'm assuming he would have dived had Gouffran not been there.

 

Fantastic shot though, oh well :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â