Premier League Spurs - Arry's gone but we still dislike them...

[jimmygreaves]

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.

I've just watched it back again and Schwarzer (sp??) pauses just before going to ground as Gallas comes into his eyeline. As soon as the ball goes past him the keeper is pointing at Gallas...

Blatant offside!

[Oaks]

The law as it is at the moment it was a goal...but the laws an ass.

[SimplySpurfect]

So Spurs have picked up 4 points in the past 2 games due to shite officiating? Can't football be wondeful at times?

I take it you were perfectly happy with the blatant handball by Dempsey that led to Fulham's goal, then? As well as Dempsey's constant dirty tactics which he managed to avoid being booked for until the latter part of the game?

The only reason why Schwarzer was slow with the dive was because there was a cluster of players between him and the ball, meaning he had no idea where it was coming. As soon as the ball was in his eyeline, he dived for the ball. The run from Gallas did nothing to alter his action.

And, as some have been saying, in accordance to the rules of the game, it's a perfectly legitimate goal. The rule might be a load of crap to some, as I personally think it is, but you can't blame the ref for adhering to it or Spurs for benefitting from it.

[Brumerican]

I think Shearer got it right last night. By the rules the goal should stand.

[Cracker1234]

If Shearer got it right last night, what about Evertons second goal, same sort of thing yet this time a player was offside but blocking the keepers view.

[OutByEaster?]

The goal should stand, the rule should go.

Any rule that is so confusing that the referee and linesman have to get together to discuss what happened in order to make a decision is a bad rule - this rule has been nothing but confusing since the moment it was introduced.

[Brumerican]

If Shearer got it right last night, what about Evertons second goal, same sort of thing yet this time a player was offside but blocking the keepers view.

Irrelevant.

I had money on Everton. :winkold:

[villadude]

rocket polishers, I **** hate Tottingham and their fans!

[Wainy316]

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

Just wishful thinking I reckon.

[theunderstudy]

VDV is a class act, however people will work out how to deal with him. Until then, he's in my fantasy team.

[Pelle]

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.

Yep, definitely. So spurs have earned 6 points so far by mistakes by the refs. Stoke, us and Fulham. The ball was in, no corner, offside. I only have one word: London.

[TheDon]

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.

He wasn't marginally offside, he was a mile offside. You didn't need to watch the line to see that.

The keeper was already fully committed to the save. He was at full stretch, he just couldn't reach it.

Once again, letter of the law it's a goal.

[SimplySpurfect]

Yep, definitely. So spurs have earned 6 points so far by mistakes by the refs. Stoke, us and Fulham. The ball was in, no corner, offside. I only have one word: London.

Yep. Completely overlook the handball that led to Fulham's goal. As well the foul on Gomes that led to the did/didn't cross the line shot for Stoke, or even the foul on Gomes for Stoke's first goal.

And the corner against Villa, whilst a poor decision, wasn't a game changing point. There are plenty of decisions incorrectly given every weekend, just because one minor incorrect decision indirectly leads to a goal doesn't mean you can just blame the ref.

And again, the goal against Fulham wasn't a mistake by the ref. It was in fact a very good decision, in keeping with the rules of the game.

But you can ignore that too to fuel your London bias, I guess.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

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.

He wasn't marginally offside, he was a mile offside. You didn't need to watch the line to see that.

The keeper was already fully committed to the save. He was at full stretch, he just couldn't reach it.

Once again, letter of the law it's a goal.

Gallas says he touched it.

Also the rules says gaining an advantage, interefering with the play also. He was.

Schwarzer wasn't at full stretch, you could see him stop a little in his dive as he's unsure about Gallas.

[SimplySpurfect]

Gallas says he touched it.

Also the rules says gaining an advantage, interefering with the play also. He was.

Schwarzer wasn't at full stretch, you could see him stop a little in his dive as he's unsure about Gallas.

Where did he say that? I've not seen or read anything from Gallas about that.

And again, Schwarzer dived for the ball as soon as he saw it. The late dive was down purely to the six or seven pairs of legs blocking his view, so he saw the ball very late. That would've been a goal completely regardless of Gallas being there, simply because Schwarzer had no view of the shot.

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

I don't know but Richard Keys says Gallas admitted to touching the ball tonight on monday night football.

He's interfering. He tried to play the ball. Therefore he's active in play.

If a player is that close to the goalkeeper and tries to touch the ball, the goalie is most likely to have that thought in his mind.

You can't touch a ball or miss it in by inches (depending on whether true) and then say your not active in play.

It's most likely give the goalie something else to think about being that close to him and the ball and therefore gaining an advantage.

[dappadan]

It was offside mate simple as that I don't begrudge Spurs the goal because I am sure we have had our share of dodgy goals, but come on mate I know you are a Spud but why defend everything?

I believe Andy Gray said Gallas said he touched it tonight before the game not sure if true or not.

[Pelle]

Yep, definitely. So spurs have earned 6 points so far by mistakes by the refs. Stoke, us and Fulham. The ball was in, no corner, offside. I only have one word: London.

Yep. Completely overlook the handball that led to Fulham's goal. As well the foul on Gomes that led to the did/didn't cross the line shot for Stoke, or even the foul on Gomes for Stoke's first goal.

And the corner against Villa, whilst a poor decision, wasn't a game changing point. There are plenty of decisions incorrectly given every weekend, just because one minor incorrect decision indirectly leads to a goal doesn't mean you can just blame the ref.

And again, the goal against Fulham wasn't a mistake by the ref. It was in fact a very good decision, in keeping with the rules of the game.

But you can ignore that too to fuel your London bias, I guess.

I saw the goals Stoke made very clearly and there was no foul what so f**king ever on Gomes on any of the goals from a Stoke player. He's challnegable, you know. But of course, you londoners shall always have something extra from the ref, so of course it should've been a foul and freekick. And I couldn't see from any replay angle that Dempsey got his hand on it and I couldn't hear anyone in the studio even debating it, ewven if one of Swedens biggest Spurs fans were sitting there and watched it. And if a player stretches to touch the ball he's offside. There's no f**king doubt about that. No matter what Schwarzer has done before he does that it's disturbing and affecting him. Don't fool yourself with trying to overlook the London bias refs.

though, the goal against us was more mentioned with tongue in cheek. i didn't see myself untill the 3rd replay that it wasn't a corner. Can't blame the ref for it. And no, it wasn't that much match deciding. But to get a goal just before the break, or letting one in, is very much affecting the game.

[SimplySpurfect]

It was offside mate simple as that I don't begrudge Spurs the goal because I am sure we have had our share of dodgy goals, but come on mate I know you are a Spud but why defend everything?

I believe Andy Gray said Gallas said he touched it tonight before the game not sure if true or not.

I don't defend everything. If I believed the goal was genuinely illegal, I'd say as much. Makes no difference at all what my opinion of it is, if it's given then it's a goal. It's not as if the goal would be ruled out if I don't defend it blindly. The point is though, as has been mentioned numerous times now, is that the goal was legitimate in keeping with the stupid rules that are currently in place.

As a rather clever poster wrote earlier in the thread, the goal should stand, the rules should go.

And nobody finds it odd that Richard Keys makes that claim but there aren't any quotes whatsoever from Gallas in any of the vast amounts of media outlets? Did Gallas give Keys a private interview where Gallas incriminated himself? In which case, shouldn't the Premier League give the goal to Gallas and not Huddlestone? Hm.

[jimmygreaves]

As a rather clever poster wrote earlier in the thread, the goal should stand, the rules should go.

• “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

It was offside. The ref dropped a bollock!