8 goals at the Brit !!

[ollyandpatch]

Good grief !!

[Wise Owl]

So!!!!

[ollyandpatch]

Unusual for a team normally last on match of the day !

Has anybody seen the Newcastle disallowed goal? Seems to be the hot topic today.

[onestepatatime]

After what I've just watched I'm more convinced than ever that Liverpool are in dire need for a goalie. Been saying all season that Mignolet is a good shot stopper but he is absolutely useless at commanding his area, coming out for balls, punching rather than catching and generally creates panic in Liverpool's defence.

 

Begrudgingly I accept I was a cracking game, the only one at the Brit in many a year!!

[philpvfc]

Unusual for a team normally last on match of the day !

Has anybody seen the Newcastle disallowed goal? Seems to be the hot topic today.

 

Yes, and thought the ref was correct in his decision but most won't.

[philpvfc]

Good grief !!

 

Good game, great result.

[CAVALIER]

Defo offside. Interfering .

[Jacko51]

Defo offside. Interfering .

 

Which one? The Newcastle one?

 

For those on here who have no understanding of the current offside law, here is the relevant bit from the current Laws of the Game.

 

• “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 challenging an opponent for the ball

 

So by which of these criteria was anyone in a black and white shirt offside?

 

If anyone thinks that the goal in question was offside on that basis I recommend a visit to this website. http://www.specsavers.co.uk/

[Have It !!]

He did nearly break his back trying to get out of the way of the flight of the ball.... which is arguably "interfering with play"

 

3 standing beyond the last defender all in the penalty box has got to be off putting.

 

It was a cracking strike, for that reason alone it should have stood, but you can see why it was 'interpreted' as offside.

 

In other news... cracking game at the Brit - great result, nice to see SAS back together... I'd love it to be their year !

[fraggle]

I tuned in after 10 minutes gone, thoroughly enjoyed the game, great advert for football, enjoyed it even more by stoke leaking 5 goals.

 

I have to say though Hughes is making Stoke play some very good attacking football!

[Jacko51]

He did nearly break his back trying to get out of the way of the flight of the ball.... which is arguably "interfering with play"

 

3 standing beyond the last defender all in the penalty box has got to be off putting.

 

It was a cracking strike, for that reason alone it should have stood, but you can see why it was 'interpreted' as offside.

 

The liner disagrees with you - he didn't flag. None of the players were interfering with that shot at all and Hart only appealed as an afterthought. And only someone as daft as you could say that trying to get out of the way of the ball so as not to interfere with it can be interpreted as interfering!

[Jacko51]

Oh well, take the rough with the smooth, it all evens itself, stop bleating and get one with it etc etc. Good to see Pardew taking things with his usual good grace...

 

Like your lot you mean?

 

Pardew can be a compelete *** at times. I think he's been on a course with Pulis.

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Which one? The Newcastle one?

 

For those on here who have no understanding of the current offside law, here is the relevant bit from the current Laws of the Game.

 

• “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 challenging an opponent for the ball

 

So by which of these criteria was anyone in a black and white shirt offside?

 

If anyone thinks that the goal in question was offside on that basis I recommend a visit to this website. http://www.specsavers.co.uk/

 

For those that don't know how the laws are applied I believe that IN THE OPINION OF THE REFEREE the second applied ;)

 

I can see why in real time the ref was of the opinion that the chap in black and white was 'clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision'..even if I don't agree with his opinion

[VantaaVale]

Ex-ref Mike Halsey reckoned that the "goal" should have stood. Also I wonder what the conversation between the referee and linesman was about, as I would have thought the linesman was in possibly the worst position to determine if Joe Hart's line of vision was impaired.

 

I think Newcastle were a bit unlucky there, but Pardew really needs to manage his anger better.

 

http://espnfc.com/news/story/_/id/1679538/former-referee-mark-halsey-disagrees-cheick-tiote-decision?cc=5739

[geosname]

Im pleased stoke are improving their game.... should be an entertaining match when we beat them