Chop chop! Lets all gawp at Newcastle (again)

[Stevo985]

Are you not reading my posts?
 
I NEVER said he was offisde.
I said he was in an offside position (which he was). That doesn't mean he was offside because he wasn't interfering with play.
 

:: A player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position.
 
:: Active involvement plus offside position is the offence.

 

 

However, from the laws of the game:
  
 

While in an offside position, there are three things a player cannot do:
:: Interfere with play
:: Interfere with an opponent
:: gain an advantage by being in an offside position
 
Interfering with an opponent is defined as:
:: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movement
:: making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent
- the opponent must be reasonably close to the play so that the blocking, deceiving or distracting makes a difference

 
I've bolded the important bits.
 
Again, I am not saying the decision was right. But from that law I can see why the ref and/or linesman at the time thought the player was offside.
 
How you can say he was nowhere near the ball is beyond me. The ball passes within about a foot of him.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Stevo985

[villa4europe]

i think this incident highlights 2 things for refs - 

 

1) they should come out and tell everyone what they saw and why they gave it - i think if he did he would say that he thought from his angle gouffran was in a position that impacted Hart's movement towards the ball, which according to the rules is offside

 

2) Video refs wont work - you can watch that 100+ times and its still a really grey area, in my mind Gouffran is impeding Hart's movement towards the ball and therefore is offside, and I've seen it around 30 times now, i don't think its possible to give a factual answer for this, its pure opinion

 

its amazing how many journos and pundits have jumped on this saying its a shocking decision when i think its actually quite justifiable, plenty of people looking at it from the angle that the ref was wrong, not enough people looking at the angle of why he might be right, and in my mind that comes from the instant reaction of the crowd, the players, the management and sky

Edited January 13, 2014 by villa4europe

[Stevo985]

It was clear from the commentators that a lot of people don't know the offside law properly.

The co commentator on sky was saying that Gouffran didn't touch the ball therefore it wasn't offside.

 

Now whilst I do agree that it wasn't offside, that's not the reason for it.

[Con]

Are you not reading my posts?

 

I NEVER said he was offisde.

I said he was in an offside position (which he was). That doesn't mean he was offside because he wasn't interfering with play.

 

:: A player is not committing an offence simply by being in an offside position.

 

:: Active involvement plus offside position is the offence.

 

 

However, from the laws of the game:

  

 

While in an offside position, there are three things a player cannot do:

:: Interfere with play

:: Interfere with an opponent

:: gain an advantage by being in an offside position

 

Interfering with an opponent is defined as:

:: preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper's line of vision or movement

:: making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent

- the opponent must be reasonably close to the play so that the blocking, deceiving or distracting makes a difference

 

I've bolded the important bits.

 

Again, I am not saying the decision was right. But from that law I can see why the ref and/or linesman at the time thought the player was offside.

 

How you can say he was nowhere near the ball is beyond me. The ball passes within about a foot of him.

 

What gesture or movement? The Newcastle player was stationary.

 

The goalkeeper's line of vision was not impeded at all. Sight of the ball was blocked by a group of Man City players.

 

In no sense did the Newcastle player interfere with the goalkeeper.

 

Joe Hart was lamely putting up his arm for offside in the hope the linesman might think the ball clipped the player on the way into the net.

 

Okay so the ball was close to him for the tiniest fraction of a milisecond  but even if it had brushed his shirt the ball was travelling so fast you just don't give those for offside.

 

It wasn't offside and I doubt if the goal would have been disallowed at Man City, or if Newcastle were playing a lower table team.

 

 

 

 

 

[Stevo985]

What gesture or movement? The Newcastle player was stationary.

Well, he moved out of the way which could be argued is enough of a gesture. If Hart thought the ball was going to hit the player and is reacting to that then that's enough, BUT I'm agreeing with you, there wasn't enough of a gesture or movement.

 

The goalkeeper's line of vision was not impeded at all. Sight of the ball was blocked by a group of Man City players.

Never said it was

 

In no sense did the Newcastle player interfere with the goalkeeper.

Debateable, but again I'd agree with you

 

Joe Hart was lamely putting up his arm for offside in the hope the linesman might think the ball clipped the player on the way into the net.

 Never mentioned this

Okay so the ball was close to him for the tiniest fraction of a milisecond  but even if it had brushed his shirt the ball was travelling so fast you just don't give those for offside.

I didn't say it made it offside. I was just responding to you saying the ball was nowhere near him, when it obviously was

 

It wasn't offside and I doubt if the goal would have been disallowed at Man City, or if Newcastle were playing a lower table team.

I agree, and have never said otherwise, although the last point is arguable

Your points answered in bold.

I don't think you are reading my posts, or at least not properly. You seem to be under the impression that I think it was the correct decision that it was offside.

It wasn't. All I'm saying is I can see why the officials gave it, even though they ultimately wrong.

It's not as much of an outrageously incomprehensible decision as people are making out.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Stevo985

[Con]

 

What gesture or movement? The Newcastle player was stationary.

Well, he moved out of the way which could be argued is enough of a gesture. If Hart thought the ball was going to hit the player and is reacting to that then that's enough, BUT I'm agreeing with you, there wasn't enough of a gesture or movement.

 

The goalkeeper's line of vision was not impeded at all. Sight of the ball was blocked by a group of Man City players.

Never said it was

 

In no sense did the Newcastle player interfere with the goalkeeper.

Debateable, but again I'd agree with you

 

Joe Hart was lamely putting up his arm for offside in the hope the linesman might think the ball clipped the player on the way into the net.

 Never mentioned this

Okay so the ball was close to him for the tiniest fraction of a milisecond  but even if it had brushed his shirt the ball was travelling so fast you just don't give those for offside.

I didn't say it made it offside. I was just responding to you saying the ball was nowhere near him, when it obviously was

 

It wasn't offside and I doubt if the goal would have been disallowed at Man City, or if Newcastle were playing a lower table team.

I agree, and have never said otherwise, although the last point is arguable

Your points answered in bold.

I don't think you are reading my posts, or at least not properly. You seem to be under the impression that I think it was the correct decision that it was offside.

It wasn't. All I'm saying is I can see why the officials gave it, even though they ultimately wrong.

It's not as much of an outrageously incomprehensible decision as people are making out.

 

 

 

I agree the incorrect decision can be comprehended. No brown envelopes need to get involved here. It is a plausible a mistake. It is a very big mistake though, I would suggest the sort of one that often favours the bigger team because the officials are more "scared" of getting one wrong against them than the other teams.

 

Well, he moved out of the way which could be argued is enough of a gesture. If Hart thought the ball was going to hit the player and is reacting to that then that's enough, BUT I'm agreeing with you, there wasn't enough of a gesture or movement.

 

 

 

 

Hart didn't dive for a bullet shot he never even saw let alone stood a chance of saving because he thought the ball would hit Goufran?

 

No, standing on the spot well-beyond diving reach of the goalie, who could not have dived to reach such a hard-struck shot anyway even if he had a big "S" on his chest, does not count as a distraction or deception.  

 

Only had the ball hit Goufran he would have been offside. The fact it didn't and he wasn't in any way interfering with the goalkeeper means he wasn't and a goal has been chalked off.

 

Pelligrini should have done the sportsmanlike thing and told his players to give Newcastle a goal.

[Stevo985]

 

Well, he moved out of the way which could be argued is enough of a gesture. If Hart thought the ball was going to hit the player and is reacting to that then that's enough, BUT I'm agreeing with you, there wasn't enough of a gesture or movement.

 

 

 

 

Hart didn't dive for a bullet shot he never even saw let alone stood a chance of saving because he thought the ball would hit Goufran?

 

No, standing on the spot well-beyond diving reach of the goalie, who could not have dived to reach such a hard-struck shot anyway even if he had a big "S" on his chest, does not count as a distraction or deception.  

 

Only had the ball hit Goufran he would have been offside. The fact it didn't and he wasn't in any way interfering with the goalkeeper means he wasn't and a goal has been chalked off.

 

Pelligrini should have done the sportsmanlike thing and told his players to give Newcastle a goal.

 

I know all this. Again, I said I was agreeing with you. My point was that in certain situations (NOT this one) you don't need to touch the ball to be deemed interfering with play.

 

If you're really expecting a manager to give a free goal after a decision like that then you're mental. Remember Pellegrini wouldn't have had the benefit of any replays. You're expecting him to be so 100% positive that the wrong decision had been made that he'd be willing to give the opposition a goal?

 

It's absurd.

Edited January 13, 2014 by Stevo985

[Con]

 

 

If you're really expecting a manager to give a free goal after a decision like that then you're mental. Remember Pellegrini wouldn't have had the benefit of any replays. You're expecting him to be so 100% positive that the wrong decision had been made that he'd be willing to give the opposition a goal?

 

It's absurd.

 

 

you can make the same argument about divers diving. difference between a sport and a business. where do you draw the line? 

 

Pelligrini should have had a good enough view to see that only Man City players were blocking Hart's line of sight. 

 

Also the ball travelled so fast and was in the net so quickly there was no time for Goufran to do anything deceptive or distracting. Pelligrini was taking advantage of a bad decision.

[Stevo985]

Well let's agree to disagree on that...

 

[Con]

I've got nothing against Man City. Just don't want something like this happening to us. Always give the benefit of doubt to the attacking side.

[Guest av1]

There seems to be much debate and divided opinion on the offside decision which to me just proves that the offside rules are a joke. If we're still debating it how can we expect officials to always call it right on one viewing?

Given what I've read (offside rules posted above) the goal should maybe have been awarded, but I'm old school, if your on the pitch your interfering. I'd much rather we returned to the old offside rules.

Just my two pennies worth.

[Stevo985]

To be honest I think the offside rule is very good.

 

But the problem is it's TOO good, in that it's so specific and complicated that it makes it very hard to apply consistently and on first viewing.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I would have let the goal stand. Hart had no chance of saving it, so what the offside player did had no bearing whatsoever.

 

I can see why they judged it offside but it seemed a bit jobsworth-ish to me.

Edited January 13, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[Zatman]

I've got nothing against Man City. Just don't want something like this happening to us. Always give the benefit of doubt to the attacking side.

 

like KEA goal vs City this season

[Rovers13]

I think that disallowed goal has been exaggerated to be honest.

Don't get me wrong, it was a bad decision, because they were wrong. But people are acting as if it was some ludicrous decision based on incomprehensible nonsense.

To me it just seemed like the player was in an offside position and the ref and/or linesman thought he had interfered with play (obstructing the keeper's view is enough to be interfering with play)

They were wrong, obviously, but I can see why they chalked it off.

it was incomprehensible.

the player was not in an offside position was nowhere near the keeper or the ball. it was a regular long range effort that happened to go in. you don't expect those to be chalked off. ridiculous decision. if it was an Aston Villa goal chalked off I would be demanding the other manager let us have a free goal. the referee and linesman between them had the perfect view.

Free goal? Incomprehensible? Get off your high horse

[ml1dch]

Also the ball travelled so fast and was in the net so quickly there was no time for Goufran to do anything deceptive or distracting. Pelligrini was taking advantage of a bad decision.

 

Yet the ball apparently travelled slowly enough that the referee should have been able to instantly establish from his diagonally angled position which (if any) of the three Newcastle players in offside positions were preventing the goalkeeper from having a clear view of the shot.

 

Stevo's absolutely correct. It was probably on balance the wrong decision. But it's grey enough that all of your nonsense about 'free goals' sounds even more ridiculous than normal.

[Con]

 

Also the ball travelled so fast and was in the net so quickly there was no time for Goufran to do anything deceptive or distracting. Pelligrini was taking advantage of a bad decision.

 

Yet the ball apparently travelled slowly enough that the referee should have been able to instantly establish from his diagonally angled position which (if any) of the three Newcastle players in offside positions were preventing the goalkeeper from having a clear view of the shot.

 

Stevo's absolutely correct. It was probably on balance the wrong decision. But it's grey enough that all of your nonsense about 'free goals' sounds even more ridiculous than normal.

 

 

This calls for a screenshot. Where is the grey area here -

 

 

 

Wham. through 4 Man City players, past Gouffran and into the net.

 

 

The only players in the way are light-blue shirted ones. The black smudge in the foreground is the referee. Full marks to him for being in the perfect position.

 

Only three players could be considered in an "offside position". neither of them are interfering with play. Hart has absolutely zero chance of saving the ball from that position. He's not even reacted and the ball is half-way to the goal.

[coda]

Con, I worry that you are neglecting wee Bannan with this new project of yours.

[Stevo985]

Con, you're arguing with yourself again.

 

You don't need to explain to us all why it wasn't offside, nobody is saying it was the right decision.

 

What we're saying is that suggesting that a manager should be so certain, having seen that offside decision from his position 50 yards away once without the benefit of replays, that his side has gained an unfair advantage that he would give the opposition a free goal is utterly ludicrous.

 

It's one of the maddest things you've ever said. And that's saying something.

[Con]

there might have been doubt from his angle whether Gouffran got a touch on the ball. but it was going to fast and hardly deviated so any slight touch would have been irrelevant. it would have been refreshing had Pelligrini done the right thing. the fact he didn't is "meh." just another manager who takes advantage of blatantly wrong decisions.