ender4 Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 I hate Spurs. thats all i have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelle Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 And you said it well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milfner Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 It's superb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dom_Wren Posted October 8, 2010 Share Posted October 8, 2010 It's superb. "The facking flappy faced twitching clearing in the woods!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villadude Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 It's superb. Brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dudevillaisnice Posted October 9, 2010 Share Posted October 9, 2010 It's superb. "The facking flappy faced twitching clearing in the woods!" hahahahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurtsimonw Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 So Spurs have picked up 4 points in the past 2 games due to shite officiating? Can't football be wondeful at times? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 So you can be 5 yards outside the goal waving a leg at the ball but your not active? I think dean has said he's not saving it anyway so gave the goal bur thats not the **** rule! And shearers a muppet, doesnt matter if its touched a fulham player or if its top corner at 100mph, gallas is **** offside! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Gallas is offside, but being offside alone isn't an offence. The referee decided he wasn't interfering with play, and it's easy to see how that's so, no one is really marking him, he isn't blocking the view of the shot, he just stand there and sticks a leg out and fails to touch the ball. Him being where he was had no effect on the game, so I can see why it was given. But you know it wouldn't be given as often as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Personally i dont see how you can stand in the 6 yard box and not be interferring wirh the keeper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EssexVilla Posted October 16, 2010 Share Posted October 16, 2010 Gallas is offside, but being offside alone isn't an offence. The referee decided he wasn't interfering with play, and it's easy to see how that's so, no one is really marking him, he isn't blocking the view of the shot, he just stand there and sticks a leg out and fails to touch the ball. Him being where he was had no effect on the game, so I can see why it was given. But you know it wouldn't be given as often as it is. Yes but he went for the ball which means that he is interfering with play. As soon as you go for the ball you are active. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Yes but he went for the ball which means that he is interfering with play. As soon as you go for the ball you are active. Nope. The laws of the game are quite specific, it's only an offence if you a: interfering with play b: interfering with an opponent c: gaining and advantage by being in that position. Here's the guidance on the 3 of those: • “interfering with play” means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate • “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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position He wasn't interfering with play, he wasn't gaining an advantage by being in that position. The question you have to ask is was he interfering with an opponent. The only candidate was the goalkeeper. The shot comes in, the goal keeper is already diving before Gallas makes any movement, so to say that he was obscuring his view would be difficult. The interesting part then is if he was making a movement which could deceive or distract the goalkeeper, there's an argument there, but again, the goalkeeper was already diving, would the keeper have actually been distracted or deceived when he's already at full stretch to cover the shot, to suddenly go "well, that's heading in the other corner now" and not save it? Personally I think that to the letter of the law, with the guidance in place for referees, it's a goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulMcgrathsknees Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. The ref needs to have an opinion for this part of the law. It was clear for everyone to see Dean had no opinion at all. (Or asked his lino if he could pretend to talk about the incident as if he wouldn't favour Spuds over Fulham?!!) Sure Harry will bung him a brown envelope for his troubles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyVillan Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 That Van Der Vaart is a bit good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ryanvilla_1994 Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 That Van Der Vaart is a bit good. Yes he is. I'm sure there were people in this thread saying that he would fail in England Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 • “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 movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent Attempting to play the ball in front of the keeper would mean the keeper would have the anticipate where the ball might go after being deflected. If the attacker wasn't in that position the keeper would be able to fully commit to making a save from the original shot.... and perhaps would have been able to make the save. OFFSIDE! goal shouldn't have been allowed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Like I said though, the keeper was already committed to the save and at full stretch before gallas moved. Gallas's movement had no effect on play, the keeper just couldn't get to the ball regardless. I'd also argue that if the keeper was anticipating a touch from an obviously offside player he's a bit of a shit keeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmygreaves Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 I'd also argue that if the keeper was anticipating a touch from an obviously offside player he's a bit of a shit keeper. :shock: The keeper is supposed to also watch the line now??? If Gallas wasn't there the keeper would have been able to fully commit to making the save, it makes no odds if he had saved it or not..... Gallas's position and attempt to play the ball interfered with play - he was offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted October 17, 2010 Moderator Share Posted October 17, 2010 I'd also argue that if the keeper was anticipating a touch from an obviously offside player he's a bit of a shit keeper. :shock: The keeper is supposed to also watch the line now??? If Gallas wasn't there the keeper would have been able to fully commit to making the save, it makes no odds if he had saved it or not..... Gallas's position and attempt to play the ball interfered with play - he was offside. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFC-Prideofbrum Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Offside for me. If Gallas just stood there, it's a goal but the fact he moves and goes for it and is only inches from it means he then interferes. I could be wrong, only Schwarzer will know but I thought he was a little slow and sort of reserved once he saw Gallas was close to it in his dive. I think had Gallas not been there he'd of got a touch on it. Whether it would of stopped it being a goal I don;t know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts