Football
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
would like to come on and tell us what their take is on the fact that the referee has been dropped this week, after the spokesman for the pro refs body stated that it was an error of judgement on his part.
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 79
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 ..... |
|
By:
was dropped for not dishing out a red after the Nasri tackle imo
|
|
By:
Agree with you there^^
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
he will be a hero on saturday when he is 4 th official at sunderland !
probably put 5,000 on the gate ! |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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  |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
has the error of judgement been stipulated ? could have been the inexplicable judgement not to send cabaye and mbiwa baresi mbiwa off.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
Has anyone got a link to the disallowed goal - can't find it anywhere online.
|
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Disappointed that the man city manager did not admit that under the rules the goal should have stood.
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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.
|
|
By:
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 !!! |
|
By:
throw out offside altogether that would shake things up.
|
|
By:
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 !!! |
|
By:
the ref has been dropped from duties this week ==== he fooked up
it was a goal!!!!!! |
|
By:
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 |
|
By:
as long as his next vist is not the first game in february
|
|
By:
lol, they wouldnt dare
|
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
the problem isnt tiotes effort, its the next one that flies in
if its their team, then the penny will drop |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
" 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?"  |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
^ Unarguable.
Anyway, time to re-simplify the offside law. |
|
By:
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. |
|
By:
Teams still play offside. If you want to allow the Tiote goal, you may as well scrap offside altogether.
|
|
By:
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 |