[Archived] Premier League Happenings

[Stuart]

Referees determined to make their respective matches about them.

Shame because this has been a good game.

[K-Hod]

Very soft penalty.

[Stuart]

Linesman can't be faulted cos there were 3 NUFC players in offside positions. The ref had to decide if they were interfering. imo the NUFC player could be interpreted as interfering cos he moved out of the way of the shot which appeared to be going to hit him.

Offside is a stupid rule these days as it's down to interpretation and is not cast in tablets of stone as it once was. If I was Pardew I'd be angry at the players who didn't appear to be even attempting to get back onside.

Absolute garbage, Gordon, and you know it.

How many times do we see an 'offside' player standing right in the line of sight of the keeper yet goals are given.

Based on current convention, there is no way that was offside, and wouldn't have been given as such at the Etihad or several other homer grounds.

[arbitro]

Referees determined to make their respective matches about them.

Shame because this has been a good game.

This is the same referee who turned down two absolute stone-walled penalties for us at Leeds on New Years Day.

[adopted scouser]

Soft penalty but Stoke would have taken it at the other end. 'Contact' is a part of today's game I hate

[Al]

Linesman can't be faulted cos there were 3 NUFC players in offside positions. The ref had to decide if they were interfering. imo the NUFC player could be interpreted as interfering cos he moved out of the way of the shot which appeared to be going to hit him.

Offside is a stupid rule these days as it's down to interpretation and is not cast in tablets of stone as it once was. If I was Pardew I'd be angry at the players who didn't appear to be even attempting to get back onside.

If you are in an offside position you are supposed to get out of the way. Typical of you to take the opposite viewpoint.

[thenodrog]

If you are in an offside position you are supposed to get out of the way. Typical of you to take the opposite viewpoint.

My 'opposite viewpoint' would be that if you are in an offside position you are supposed to get into an onside one.

btw... Al you are a real sulker.

[Al]

My 'opposite viewpoint' would be that if you are in an offside position you are supposed to get into an onside one.

btw... Al you are a real sulker.

It is not an offence to be in an offside position.

What's this about sulking? Do you not like being told that you take the opposite viewpoint just to be obtuse? Seems to me you are the sulker.

[adopted scouser]

3-5 What a game, the way Sturridge kept his head there

[Josh]

Brilliant game of football. Much better than what the so called 'big' clubs have put on when playing each other

[Guest Norbert]

Newcastle were very good overall, but my God they were dirty. I've not seen the disallowed goal, but if a number of players are standing in front of the keeper, they're interfering in my book. Anyway, they could have ended with 9 men if the ref had a spine.

The other game was great.

[RevidgeBlue]

I remember all the furore about the goal scored by Liverpool at Ewood a few years back when the Liverpool player in an offside position stepped over or "dummied" the ball and the consensus or official line taken then was that the goal was ok because you aren't "active" unless the ball touches you.

Horrendous decision today in the City game imo seemingly compounded by the fact that neither of the officials appeared to see anything untoward until Citeh thought about complaining then after a hastily arranged conflab between ref and lino it wss chalked off.

Seems like a case of the best team around at any one time get all the dodgy decisions, and that mantle has crossed from United to City now imo.

[Stuart]

That's about the size of it, Rev. And Norbert, you need to see it. It was such a good goal that it was a minute after all of the celebrations that it was eventually chalked off. Hart had a clear view and would have got nowhere near it.

The problem with the new rule is that there is too much discretion afforded to the referee. Back in the day, it was offside. In these modern times, there is no way that can be given offside as is tantamount to cheating to do so.

[Guest Norbert]

The offside rule should simply go back to the basic 'attacking player is past the last defender'. None of this 'active' nonsense that makes everything confusing.

[den]

I remember all the furore about the goal scored by Liverpool at Ewood a few years back when the Liverpool player in an offside position stepped over or "dummied" the ball and the consensus or official line taken then was that the goal was ok because you aren't "active" unless the ball touches you.

Horrendous decision today in the City game imo seemingly compounded by the fact that neither of the officials appeared to see anything untoward until Citeh thought about complaining then after a hastily arranged conflab between ref and lino it wss chalked off.

Seems like a case of the best team around at any one time get all the dodgy decisions, and that mantle has crossed from United to City now imo.

Think it was Cisse, who actually tried to touch the ball.

The offside rule should simply go back to the basic 'attacking player is past the last defender'. None of this 'active' nonsense that makes everything confusing.

Then we get goals disallowed because someone is offside when he's stood on the wing and nowhere near the play.

[Guest Norbert]

So? It will mean strikers who can break the offside trap with timing will be more valuable, and that skill will be better. As things stand, a player coming off the wing can score even if a striker is in an offside position, which affects the positioning of the keeper. Unless they have made it even more complicated in the last few years.

[RevidgeBlue]

As we've seen over the years cutting out all the technicalities, the offside rule can be neatly summarised thus:

"In the event of a debatable offside decision needing to be given and a bigger Club is playing a smaller Club - if the goal is scored by the smaller Club the decision to be given shall be offside and if the goal is scored by the bigger Club the goal shall stand."

[thenodrog]

If the offside Newcastle player had stood still with his arms aloft to signify that he was not interfering with play as appears to be the way of it these days then the ball would have hit him square on. By dodging out of the way at the last minute as he did does that not count as 'interfering' or being active or whatever they call being offside these days?

[Stuart]

I can't believe you are still trying to justify the offside. Is the ref a relation of yours, or do you just not like Newcastle?

When a player scores a thunderbolt like that, where the ball flies straight into the net without deflection, it is never given as offside under the modern interpretation.

The referee has decided he doesn't want the goal to stand as has made up his own interpretation to suit, simply because he was put under pressure by players from the richest club in the league.

[onlyonejackwalker]

Ridiculous offside decision. What an amazing left footed strike by Tiote! Goal of the season contender had it stood. Felt sorry for the Barcodes with that. A sore one indeed!

[Jimmy612]

I can't believe you are still trying to justify the offside. Is the ref a relation of yours, or do you just not like Newcastle?

When a player scores a thunderbolt like that, where the ball flies straight into the net without deflection, it is never given as offside under the modern interpretation.

The referee has decided he doesn't want the goal to stand as has made up his own interpretation to suit, simply because he was put under pressure by players from the richest club in the league.

http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf

I think this is some kind of teaching guide slideshow. Gives a number of examples of what is offside/onside, active/inactive.

From what I can gather, the offence is obstructing the goalkeepers vision or perhaps preventing him from making the save e.g. in his way when he dives.

As neither of these offences occured then surely the goal should stand?

Although Theno does have a point. Why on earth was Gouffran still stood there instead of making more of an effort to get back onside. Either plain lazy or incredibly poor ball watching in my opinion.

[Roverthechimp]

I don't have a problem with the offside decision - rather i have a problem with the offside "rule" as it is these days.

That said i havn't seen how the decision came about and if both ref and linesman (sorry assistant referee) gave the goal and then went back on it then it seriously needs looking into as one wonders where did the additional input come from to change their decision???

[M-K]

I suppose the ref must have decided it took a deflection off the goalhanging offside player.

Perhaps they should amend the rule so players who are offside in the penalty area are always deemed to be interfering with play. It would get rid of the current confusion, and refs would only have to make a judgement call if the player is offside outside the box, which is much less likely to result in 'controversial' decisions and accusations of big-club bias.

That said, it was worth ruling it out just for Pardew's reaction.

[den]

I suppose the ref must have decided it took a deflection off the goalhanging offside player.

Perhaps they should amend the rule so players who are offside in the penalty area are always deemed to be interfering with play. It would get rid of the current confusion, and refs would only have to make a judgement call if the player is offside outside the box, which is much less likely to result in 'controversial' decisions and accusations of big-club bias.

That said, it was worth ruling it out just for Pardew's reaction.

I think the offside law - and the interpretation of it, works as well now, if not better than it ever has done. The number of stoppages during a game has reduced tremendously. Why would fans want more, unnecessary stoppages? I don't see many controversies nowadays.

[M-K]

I think the offside law - and the interpretation of it, works as well now, if not better than it ever has done. The number of stoppages during a game has reduced tremendously. Why would fans want more, unnecessary stoppages? I don't see many controversies nowadays.

I suppose so. But football was okay for a long time with the old offside rule, which was fairly simple to call - on or off.

Now you can have a goal being awarded despite players standing offside near the keeper but in another game a seemingly identical one can be chalked off for interference, and nobody can say for certain which interpretation of the rule is correct.

They need video replays for this stuff. Just have somebody look at it from different angles and see whether a player was obscuring the keeper's view or deflecting the ball.