maybe all the dinosaures who said yesterdays newcastle goal was rightly dissallowed

The same ref awarded a goal at liverpool when the ball hit a beach ball that was on the pitch and was diverted into the net.

yeah, and ruled out leyroy fers goal because he hadnt signalled a throw in to be taken

all these instances of not knowing, or not caring about the rules, or giving explanations that dont fit the facts are catching up with him


.....until the next time .....

was dropped for not dishing out a red after the Nasri tackle imo

Agree with you there^^

the refs mouthpiece said on the radio that when he saw the tackle on nasri he thought it was a yellow,but when he watched it in slow mo realised it was worse than it first looked, said he understood why the ref only gave a yellow.

talking about the disallowed goal he said that the ref was guilty of an error of judgement.

he will be a hero on saturday when he is 4 th official at sunderland !

probably put 5,000 on the gate !

Hang on a minute donny you can't have it both ways.

The main criticism about him with the Norwich goal was that he hadn't applied the rules of the game. Well by the absolute letter of the law the disallowed Newcastle goal was actually offside.

Now just imagine after the Fer incident that Mike Riley said to him it was a difficult situation but you should have gone by the absolute letter of the law. So this time he's done exactly that and people are now saying he should have gone the other way.

what do the rules say ?

thought if the guy in offside position blocks keepers view he is interfering in play and its offside ,although did the ref not say he thought it took a slight deflection off him ,was covered either way i think .

yes/no ?

pelle  comes over as a gent imo and pardY a complete prat ....end of newky run imo

The same ref was in charge of Everton v Newcastle last season - when Everton had a goal disallowed when Fellaini was at least a yard onside and then didn't gave a goal given when the ball crossed the goal-line. I know those decisions were down to an incompetent linesman rather than bad refereeing, but the moral of the story is the same:

What goes around, comes around.

marcce

the rules say it was a goal

are you stuck in an 80s time warp




what has come around, will come round again with this referee

has the error of judgement been stipulated ? could have been the inexplicable judgement not to send cabaye and mbiwa baresi mbiwa off.

This is easily fixed. Get back to the simple rule: if you're offside, you're offside. They've made a mockery and a nightmare of the offside rule and the interpretation thereof. Feckin mess. "Not interfering with play" - no, just hanging around in front of the goalie. Nonsense.

Has anyone got a link to the disallowed goal - can't find it anywhere online.

hart's view was blocked by 3/4 of his own defenders and not one newcastle player. look at it again. but the rules use the word 'distracting'. I don't think it should be disallowed and I suspect the ref gave it for a touch off gouffran. If none of the newcastle players were there he wasn't getting near it.

But i sympathise for the ref, it's almost as if the rules are designed to be confusing and wrong decisions like this are thus inevitable

morpeth.

yes he said that according to the interpretation that is in place presently for the offside law he made an error of judgement, can't get more specific than that.

as for the "if he's in an offside position he's offside brigade" well that's plain ridiculous, any goal that's scored from a cross that's put in from the byeline would be ruled out along with a multitude of others.

the people who say it was offside really have to give this one up,the whole of the officiating side of the game on mass have said it was wrongly dissallowed.you can argue about the law, or the current interpretation/ guidelines,but these people officiate the game

the ref has been dropped from this weeks fixtures.

i really can't remember a decision where there's been such an overwhelming agreement between "football people" that it was wrong.

Unfortunately mexicano is right. I say unfortunately because there's no way that goal should have been awarded but according to the current laws of the game, the referee shouldn't have disallowed it. It's the laws that are wrong.

Donny what I'm saying is he had one look at it. There was more than 1 Newcastle player offside in the goalmouth and the ball flew through a crowd of players. Without the aid of a replay he'd have had no way of knowing for sure if the offside players were in the line of Hart's vision. I personally think he took what he felt was the safe decision given that the one thing he did know was that there were Newcastle players beyond the last defender.

Without the aid of a replay he'd have been guessing whether those players were interfering with play or not and that's the very thing you've had a pop at him for. After we'd all seen replays it was quite obviously a definite goal but he didn't have that benefit unfortunately.

Disappointed that the man city manager did not admit that under the rules the goal should have stood.

Darlo for the good of the game the laws are absolutely right.

You might think differently but I really don't want to go back to watching well drilled defences push up and catch attackers offside every time they attack.

I don't want to go back to halycon days where offside meant offside. But a player stood in the six yard box is offside all day long. He had to jump out of the way of the ball and had he not - despite the fact he apparently wasn't interfering with play - the goal certainly wouldn't have stood.

anybody who is standing within the line of the goal posts and right in front of the goal line is clearly interfering with play no matter how many idiots look at it over and over again and try to look for ridiculous reasons to pretend that the goal should stand.

marcce

Donny what I'm saying is he had one look at it. There was more than 1 Newcastle player offside in the goalmouth and the ball flew through a crowd of players. Without the aid of a replay he'd have had no way of knowing for sure if the offside players were in the line of Hart's vision




surely if that is correct you cannot disallow it ?

he guessed, and guessed wrong !!!

throw out offside altogether that would shake things up.

would be back to schoolyard goalhangers dessie, ...wouldnt work



the current rules are as near to good as you can get

hope they get it right next time, even if it is against us !!!

the ref has been dropped from duties this week ==== he fooked up


it was a goal!!!!!!

he'll get a good reception at stadium of sh1te  anth

might give them their biggest crowd of the season

a reminder of his beach ball goal too

how fitting

as long as his next vist is not the first game in february

lol, they wouldnt dare

the reason they use the current interpretation of the law is to stop the very situation that arose on sunday.

a perfectly good goal ruled out because somebody with no input to the scoring of the goal just happens to be standing in a certain part of the pitch.

it seems to me that those who say it was rightly dissallowed might as well go howl at the moon.

the refs say it was a wrong decision.

the pundits say it was a wrong decision.

most fans say it was a wrong decision.

but we have the whole spectrum of "dissallowers"here. from those who try to peddle the ridiculous notion that anybody in an offside position is offside, through people who say he was/could have been, distracting the goalie slightly/lots/in his line of vision/blocking his view, through to somebody advocating the scrapping of the law entirely.

the reason they use the current interpretation is because they don't want perfectly good goals chalked off because of a technical offside, the benefit of any doubt should be with the attacking side, so unless the ref is pretty sure in his mind that a player in an offside position somehow impinged on the defending teams ability to stop it being scored the goal must stand.

now you may want to argue that he "put the keeper" off and that is a perfectly valid point of view to have, but it would appear that most within the game[especially those that count in this argument the refs] would take issue with you.

my view for what it's worth is that hart was never going to save it whether the fellow was there or not,and by not allowing it the ref has gone against the guidelines.

the problem isnt tiotes effort, its the next one that flies in

if its their team, then the penny will drop

You're spot on Mex, however you want to interpret the law the fact is it was changed so like goals of that nature stand.  You can be pedantic and say Gouffran's position did affect Hart in some way but even if he'd taken an extra step to the left in all probability he's not even getting close to getting his hands to it.

Amuses me when people say **** like 'nobody knows what's on and offside these days'.  It's actually clear (to anyone who can be bothered to read the law and the illustrations), especially when they altered the wording last year.

it seems to me that the ref has one question to ask himself in such a situation

" am i of the strong opinion that the shot would have been saved had the "offside" players not been there".

if the answer is not yes, the goal stands.

as for the "if he's in an offside position he's offside brigade" well that's plain ridiculous


Why? It worked for long enough before.

" am i of the strong opinion that the shot would have been saved had the "offside" players not been there".


OR


"Am I of the strong opinion that the goal would not have been scored if the beach ball had not been there?"

Outpost
     14 Jan 14 14:56 

anybody who is standing within the line of the goal posts and right in front of the goal line is clearly interfering with play no matter how many idiots look at it over and over again and try to look for ridiculous reasons to pretend that the goal should stand.



Spot on.

^ Unarguable.

Anyway, time to re-simplify the offside law.

Someone standing in line of the goal posts right in front of the goal is not necessarily interfering with play. If a centre half is stood in that position but stands and watches a centre forward stick the ball in the net he's not interfering with play, he's stood there watching. Which is exactly what those Newcastle players were doing.

Under FIFA's definition of interfering with play, nobody was it's as simple as that and the goal was wrongly disallowed. As I say though I can see why he's ended up in a position where he's disallowed it.

Oh and will people please give up when they say to go back to the old rule. As I've said before going back to the days when sides could use a well drilled offside trap as their main tactic for defending would be a disaster for the game.

Teams still play offside. If you want to allow the Tiote goal, you may as well scrap offside altogether.

the players are unable to play the ball from their positions, if they do they become offside

therefore the rule is worth keeping

time was the joke was women didnt understand offside

seems its not just women now

Why not just make offside clear cut, if you are offside you are offside, none of this active or not active malarkey

because it didnt work

And this does ?

maybe all the dinosaures who said yesterdays newcastle goal was rightly dissallowed
mexicano

donny osmond • January 15, 2014 9:10 PM GMT
time was the joke was women didnt understand offside

seems its not just women now


Well done lads, once you can't admit you have lost the argument resort to playground name calling




donny osmond • January 14, 2014 7:51 AM GMT
marcce

the rules say it was a goal

are you stuck in an 80s time warp


The rules say it was a goal? The rules of what game are you referring to?

Again, which part of the offside laws state that a player has to play, or even attempt to play the ball?

A player shall be penalised offside if the referee considers
i. The player was interfering with play
ii. The player was interfering with an opponent
iii. The player is gaining an advantage by being offside

Just because some referees would allowed it to be a goal does not mean they are right. This seems to be the basis of peoples' argument on here
Referees are for the most part spineless individuals, who for example will give fouls outside of the box way more than they would inside of the box. Is there a separate law for fouls inside and outside of the box? No, and just because a lot of referees choose that route as an easy way out does not make it correct application of the laws of the game.

simply repeating things will never make them correct, except of course in your own mind

I am stating the laws, these are a matter of fact.

Are you saying the laws are incorrect? Or should just be applied when you feel like it?

perhaps you should consult the full laws of the game , with diagrams

all will become clear

maybe he could make a video?

Lets see these diagrams please

the diagrams are part of the laws you are quoting

OK so what does the diagram of someone being called offside by "gaining an advantage from being offside" look like?

given up ?

I have not seen these official diagrams, so am interested to know what you have seen on the matter.

you are quoting the laws, to do so without having seen them is probably why you are incorrect

Are you saying my factually correct laws are incorrect?

i havnt said that

on the fifa web site here :

.http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/footballdevelopment/technicalsupport/refereeing/laws-of-the-game/law/newsid=1290867.html

there is a link on the right to a PDF about interpreting the laws. Maybe that will help especially the "definitions" on the second page.

To all the people who keep quoting the actual rules: Please stop wasting your time. There are a number of people on here are never going to understand these rules. They are probably recent converts to football from computer games. They have only ever seen matches where someone is standing in an offside position and they think that the rules allow this. They will not understand that the offside rule didn't change - just the interpretation of it. (Having said that the law did change to allow players who are level to be onside where previously it would have been offside)

I personally believe that the offside rule should be abolished. Too many crucial mistakes are made (not in the Newcastle case). The offside rule was brought in because of goal hangers scoring shedloads of easy goals. This would not happen now. If a striker went up to goal hang, three defenders would go back to mark him. This would get rid of the densely packed midfield and improve the game.

This fella reminds me a lot of Jason Dodd, he would argue the t0ss over nothing for days on end too.

Thanks Degs:

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 clearly the referee was correct to disallow the goal, because Gouffran was in Hart's line of vision. If Gouffran was standing to the side of the goal he would not have been in sight so would have been a goal.

I think you also need to look at diagram 7

Yes diagram 7 is what I just said, if Goufrann was standing to the side of the goal then it should have been awarded as a goal.

Did you mean another diagram?

Diagram 6 is more like what happened and is offside. Did you mean that?

It doesn't mention about standing to the side of the goal, the key is :

"obstructing the opponent’s line of vision" , not just being in it.

Being in the line of vision is obstructing it. What do you mean?

Ok, I'm sure you're right.

Well it is not me it is the laws. Even these diagrams say it is offside.

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 clearly the referee was correct to disallow the goal, because Gouffran was in Hart's line of vision

No because even if he was in his the corner of his vision (certainly wasn't in the line of vision, spectrum of vision perhaps) he didn't prevent him from playing the ball or being able to play it

Hart was not getting his hands to the ball whether he'd dived to his left or not, it was going way to fast

why the arguments?the refs brotherhood have agreed the ref made a mistake,the premier league have demoted the ref,so what exactly is the argument?

Jan 16, 2014 -- 2:07PM, anth699 wrote:

why the arguments?the refs brotherhood have agreed the ref made a mistake,the premier league have demoted the ref,so what exactly is the argument?

so because others say its right we shouldn't question it or have our own opinion......you are a prize example of what is wrong in society, too many sheep.

not demoted for that decision imo  but who  really knows ?  why cant  refs  and linos hold a press conference before the managers are made to look like raging animals straight after a game .
The rules need changed  to allow technology ,we need all players  patched and ball patched so technology can sort offsides, throw-ins and and goals when things are tight ,after all one decision can be the difference between a game ,a league ,a season ...jobs in fact one decision could be the diff between a club going under and staying solvent .And its a million doller industry because they made it so .


but maybe most of all we need less foxing ,games pretty rank and will soon be like racing imo ,just their for the books .

the bootyful game has changed beyond all recognition ,its barely a working mans sport anymore ,run for and by corporations for shareholders profits .

I here a lot of calls for the offside rule to be scrapped. I would love to see how that would work in practise. I think it would lead to an avalanche of goals with score lines like 14-10 becoming commonplace. In short it would turn football into a farce. I think they should organise some exhibition matches featuring top Premier League sides that don't have the offside rule, just to see what would happen.

Would anyone actually like it if there were 20+ goals per game?

DonNo1 16 Jan 14 01:16 Joined: 11 Nov 10 | Topic/replies: 5,532 | Blogger: DonNo1's blog

No because even if he was in his the corner of his vision (certainly wasn't in the line of vision, spectrum of vision perhaps) he didn't prevent him from playing the ball or being able to play it

Hart was not getting his hands to the ball whether he'd dived to his left or not, it was going way to fast



So what you are saying then is that the player must be so close to the keeper that the only thing the keeper can see is his big fast arse? That is ridiculous. Clearly by the the laws of the game the word "obstructing" is used meaning hinder, impair etc. If the player impairs the decision making of the goalie in being offside then the player is deemed offside. Whether that be obstructing/impairing the view of the ball, or as in this case impairing Hart's decision to go for the ball or not and taking his eye off the ball for a split second by being in a goal scoring poition


What has the fact whether Hart was getting any where near the ball got to do with the price of a packet of biscuits?

fred you've inadvertantly put it in a nutshell with your last question.

if [as most seem to agree] hart was never going to save that, how can the newcastle player be "effecting the play"?

I never said he was not getting anywhere near it, I asked what that had got to do with anything? Where in the law does it say the keeper would have had to get near the ball in mexicano's or anyone elses opinion?

fred

you've got to give this one up.

it seems that for the sake of your argument that you're now prepared to peddle the line that hart would have saved it.

i'll say this for the last time.

the refs guidlines state that if a player in an offside position is not having an effect on the play the goal must stand.

So in your opinion if Hart would have saved the shot without Gouffran being there, but conceded the same shot with Gouffran acting in the same manner ass he did, then what would your decision be?

Fred - you seem to be interpreting the rules differently to senior officials who have suspended the ref because he made a mistake - I think I'll accept their version

He has not been suspended because of the decision he made for the goal (or any other particular decision) - If referees were suspended every time they made a mistake there would be none left for next week.
The reason he has been suspended is because he was deemed to have had a poor game. Which again begs the question why aren't a whole heap of referees suspended each week.
It seems the referees body is as spineless as referees individually generally are. Clearly if Pardew had not thrown his toys out of the pram then nothing would have been made over this incident.

What has the fact whether Hart was getting any where near the ball got to do with the price of a packet of biscuits?


Everything.  You're trying to claim he's offside because he was 'Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision'

Take this situation Tiote plays Gouffran through Hart sprints off his line and gets there just ahead but scuffs it straight to Tiote who hammers it in.  Hart turns as soon as he's scuffed it but Gouffran is in his way (offside position).  Is that offside even though Hart is 40 yards from goal and the shot goes in on the full?

Gouffran isn't stopping Hart from playing the ball or being able to play it, he might be stopping Hart from making an attempt to play it but that's not offside because the attempt it completely futile.

If you think Hart may have got his hands to it if Gouffran wasn't there then fair enough.  I don't think he ever would have.  You have to note that Gouffran can impact Hart's line of vision however he want's until it's left Tiote's boot and it's not offside.

The speed of the shot, the City players in his vision and his position prior to it leaving Tiote's boot are what stops Hart being able to play the ball, not that Gouffran is there