By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Spurs have an obvious offside goal allowed to stand, then Romero pulls Curcuella to the ground by his hair, that's all ok then? How did the Ref not see it a couple of yards away?
What's the point if they're getting the obvious wrong?
The first goal wise he’s not offside as he makes no contact on the ball, and isn’t intervening with the goalies eyesight as there’s a Chelsea defender right in front of him. So isn’t classified as offside, as he may be in an offside position but isn’t intervening so the goal can stand.
And second goal wise, well yeah VAR could have maybe rules it out, but the Chelsea lads also pulling on the spurs lads shirt so it’s going both ways and from what I saw a spurs lad also got shoved over at the front post. As fouls (to a certain degree) are like equations on the fact that when they’re level they just amount to nothing, so you play on, and it’s only when one sides worse that you actually have to deal with them.
So really they should have had like 1.5 goals scored, as the first ones perfectly valid and the second ones debatable as spurs fans will say it’s ok, Chelsea ones will say it’s a foul and neutrals will be split.
The first goal wise he’s not offside as he makes no contact on the ball, and isn’t intervening with the goalies eyesight as there’s a Chelsea defender right in front of him. So isn’t classified as offside, as he may be in an offside position but isn’t intervening so the goal can stand.
And second goal wise, well yeah VAR could have maybe rules it out, but the Chelsea lads also pulling on the spurs lads shirt so it’s going both ways and from what I saw a spurs lad also got shoved over at the front post. As fouls (to a certain degree) are like equations on the fact that when they’re level they just amount to nothing, so you play on, and it’s only when one sides worse that you actually have to deal with them.
So really they should have had like 1.5 goals scored, as the first ones perfectly valid and the second ones debatable as spurs fans will say it’s ok, Chelsea ones will say it’s a foul and neutrals will be split.
The Chelsea defender Koulibaly Isn't in front of of Richarlson, he's a yard to his right when PH hits the shot.
The Chelsea defender Koulibaly Isn't in front of of Richarlson, he's a yard to his right when PH hits the shot.
Just seen it again on MOTD, and no he is basically behind the defender, and as shown on there, mendy can quite clearly see the ball when Hojberg kicks it, so Richarlison isn’t impending his eyesight. And that’s why they also agreed that he wasn’t, and is pretty clear from this video (at 3:13)…
the point is that richarlison is close enough to the ball to deflect it so the goalkeeper cannot react till its past him therefore he is interfering with play in an offside position plus he is really close to being in line of sight.Pulling the chelsea player down by his hair is violent conduct end of.
the point is that richarlison is close enough to the ball to deflect it so the goalkeeper cannot react till its past him therefore he is interfering with play in an offside position plus he is really close to being in line of sight.Pulling the chelsea player down by his hair is violent conduct end of.
The hair pulling one I agree with to a certain degree (although with everything that goes on in the box at set pieces I get why it wasn’t given), but what your saying doesn’t matter, as Richarlison is clearly trying to avoid the ball, and under the LOTG, when he did means that he didn’t intervene with play.
As keepers can react beforehand as if Richarlison’s does play it and intervene with play then he is offside and intervening meaning that the goal wouldn’t have stranded. And even then, you can see from the footage that Mendy was clearly unaffected by Richarlison’s presence as he dives as soon as Hojberg takes the shot, therefore proving even more that Richarlison didn’t intervene or affect Mendy.
The hair pulling one I agree with to a certain degree (although with everything that goes on in the box at set pieces I get why it wasn’t given), but what your saying doesn’t matter, as Richarlison is clearly trying to avoid the ball, and under the LOTG, when he did means that he didn’t intervene with play.
As keepers can react beforehand as if Richarlison’s does play it and intervene with play then he is offside and intervening meaning that the goal wouldn’t have stranded. And even then, you can see from the footage that Mendy was clearly unaffected by Richarlison’s presence as he dives as soon as Hojberg takes the shot, therefore proving even more that Richarlison didn’t intervene or affect Mendy.
But by the sounds of things there was a mess up in our game…
The hair pulling one I agree with to a certain degree (although with everything that goes on in the box at set pieces I get why it wasn’t given), but what your saying doesn’t matter, as Richarlison is clearly trying to avoid the ball, and under the LOTG, when he did means that he didn’t intervene with play.
As keepers can react beforehand as if Richarlison’s does play it and intervene with play then he is offside and intervening meaning that the goal wouldn’t have stranded. And even then, you can see from the footage that Mendy was clearly unaffected by Richarlison’s presence as he dives as soon as Hojberg takes the shot, therefore proving even more that Richarlison didn’t intervene or affect Mendy.
“ as Richarlison is clearly trying to avoid the ball, and under the LOTG, when he did means that he didn’t intervene with play. ”
So if there were 3 players stood in front of the goalie, doing star jumps, so long as they tried to avoid the ball when it passed, they would not be interfering with play?
“ as Richarlison is clearly trying to avoid the ball, and under the LOTG, when he did means that he didn’t intervene with play. ”
So if there were 3 players stood in front of the goalie, doing star jumps, so long as they tried to avoid the ball when it passed, they would not be interfering with play?
Depends on whether or not they’re blocking/effecting the keepers line of vision.
As if they’re not (so let’s say the balls coming in from the wing and is an arial one) and all those players are outside of the 6 yard box, and those players don’t have any sudden changes in movement that makes them look like they’re going for the ball or other forms of intervening with play, then no, they’ve not committed any offside offences.
As to be offside a player must do one of 3 things… 1: They must touch the ball 2: They must intervene with the defensive team by infringing with play (so running towards the ball, or affecting a defensive players ability to play/access the ball) 3: Blocking the eyesights of opposition players to the ball.
So everyone should agree that he’s not doing 1, and nor is he doing 2 as he’s behind the defender and making no contact on him. And 3, well as the footage shows and Jenas said on MOTD yesterday, Mendy can clearly see the ball when Hojberg shoots (which is why he doesn’t complain when the ball goes in), and even if Richarlison was in the way (which he wasn’t as he isn’t clearly impacting Mendy’s vision) there is the defender right in front of him who is also obstructing Mendy’s vision, meaning that even if Richarlison wasn’t there, Mendy would be able to see basically the exact same.
Depends on whether or not they’re blocking/effecting the keepers line of vision.
As if they’re not (so let’s say the balls coming in from the wing and is an arial one) and all those players are outside of the 6 yard box, and those players don’t have any sudden changes in movement that makes them look like they’re going for the ball or other forms of intervening with play, then no, they’ve not committed any offside offences.
As to be offside a player must do one of 3 things… 1: They must touch the ball 2: They must intervene with the defensive team by infringing with play (so running towards the ball, or affecting a defensive players ability to play/access the ball) 3: Blocking the eyesights of opposition players to the ball.
So everyone should agree that he’s not doing 1, and nor is he doing 2 as he’s behind the defender and making no contact on him. And 3, well as the footage shows and Jenas said on MOTD yesterday, Mendy can clearly see the ball when Hojberg shoots (which is why he doesn’t complain when the ball goes in), and even if Richarlison was in the way (which he wasn’t as he isn’t clearly impacting Mendy’s vision) there is the defender right in front of him who is also obstructing Mendy’s vision, meaning that even if Richarlison wasn’t there, Mendy would be able to see basically the exact same.
I really couldn't give a sh1t about Chelsea or Spurs. All I do know is that if that had been Saints, the goal would have been ruled out... and everyone knows it.
Depends on whether or not they’re blocking/effecting the keepers line of vision.
As if they’re not (so let’s say the balls coming in from the wing and is an arial one) and all those players are outside of the 6 yard box, and those players don’t have any sudden changes in movement that makes them look like they’re going for the ball or other forms of intervening with play, then no, they’ve not committed any offside offences.
As to be offside a player must do one of 3 things… 1: They must touch the ball 2: They must intervene with the defensive team by infringing with play (so running towards the ball, or affecting a defensive players ability to play/access the ball) 3: Blocking the eyesights of opposition players to the ball.
So everyone should agree that he’s not doing 1, and nor is he doing 2 as he’s behind the defender and making no contact on him. And 3, well as the footage shows and Jenas said on MOTD yesterday, Mendy can clearly see the ball when Hojberg shoots (which is why he doesn’t complain when the ball goes in), and even if Richarlison was in the way (which he wasn’t as he isn’t clearly impacting Mendy’s vision) there is the defender right in front of him who is also obstructing Mendy’s vision, meaning that even if Richarlison wasn’t there, Mendy would be able to see basically the exact same.
Well here’s a perfect picture to prove that he wasn’t even in the keepers eyesight anyway
Depends on whether or not they’re blocking/effecting the keepers line of vision.
As if they’re not (so let’s say the balls coming in from the wing and is an arial one) and all those players are outside of the 6 yard box, and those players don’t have any sudden changes in movement that makes them look like they’re going for the ball or other forms of intervening with play, then no, they’ve not committed any offside offences.
As to be offside a player must do one of 3 things… 1: They must touch the ball 2: They must intervene with the defensive team by infringing with play (so running towards the ball, or affecting a defensive players ability to play/access the ball) 3: Blocking the eyesights of opposition players to the ball.
So everyone should agree that he’s not doing 1, and nor is he doing 2 as he’s behind the defender and making no contact on him. And 3, well as the footage shows and Jenas said on MOTD yesterday, Mendy can clearly see the ball when Hojberg shoots (which is why he doesn’t complain when the ball goes in), and even if Richarlison was in the way (which he wasn’t as he isn’t clearly impacting Mendy’s vision) there is the defender right in front of him who is also obstructing Mendy’s vision, meaning that even if Richarlison wasn’t there, Mendy would be able to see basically the exact same.
mendy clearly is affected because he dives so late,he probablyfrom where he is doesnt realise richarlison is offside and cannot react till its past him,in my oppinion he is interfering with play and gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
mendy clearly is affected because he dives so late,he probablyfrom where he is doesnt realise richarlison is offside and cannot react till its past him,in my oppinion he is interfering with play and gaining an advantage by being in an offside position
You would have been right several versions ago, and I would have the same interpretation, but only current rules apply.
You would have been right several versions ago, and I would have the same interpretation, but only current rules apply.
i think its fairly subjective this var allowed it another probably disallowed it,still shows despite var we still have things to disagree about in the beautiful game
i think its fairly subjective this var allowed it another probably disallowed it,still shows despite var we still have things to disagree about in the beautiful game
Yep and it’ll never change! Although I’m not sure if any of you guys have heard about what Taylor has received threat wise and with stupid petitions, but things do need to change as these days not enough people know the LOTG
You said in your first post the Chelsea defender is in front of Richlarson when the ball is struck, he's a yard right as you can see on your picture.
Mendy can't move any way until the ball passes him (he don't know if on/offside).
Do you agree Mendy saves that 10/10 if Richlarson is not there? De Gea maybe1/10
He is basically in front, I mean I’m not talking BAR offside close like lines, but he basically in front. But the ball passing Richarlison is irrelevant as it’s only if he intervenes or blocks the eyesight to the keeper (nether of which he did) that he’s classified as being offside. So yeah maybe Richarlison gains an advantage by being there, but in the LOTG no offside offences have been committed.
Also I think De Gea is actually a pretty decent keeper, it’s just that when you’ve got such a shambles of defence in front of you, then your pretty likely to be having a lot of shots and therefore a mistake from time to time
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
