|
|
Post by Curly Wurly on Oct 27, 2014 15:23:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by DudeLebowski on Oct 27, 2014 15:54:28 GMT
Blimey, fancy having to choose a home player man of the match after that training game! Even more one sided than I remember, we were camped in their half for (more or less) the entire game!
Loving the Monkhouse header, what a beauty!
|
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293 
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 27, 2014 16:23:16 GMT
I loved the musical intro and titles to the video. Very retro.  |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 27, 2014 17:37:45 GMT
Having looked at it about 10 times, istm Taylor was interfering with play on the fourth goal.
|
|
Igitur
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 2,294
Member is Online
|
Post by Igitur on Oct 27, 2014 17:53:49 GMT
I loved the musical intro and titles to the video. Very retro.
The run out tune, Blaze Away, brought a smile to my face too and stayed in my head for the rest of the day as it was used in a song from my old rugby days with rather questionable lyrics.
|
|
Rex
Predictions League
Joined: June 2014
Posts: 3,287
|
Post by Rex on Oct 27, 2014 23:46:52 GMT
Who is the handsome bald chap who gets in the way of the camera at the start ?
|
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 28, 2014 12:26:25 GMT
Having looked at it about 10 times, istm Taylor was interfering with play on the fourth goal. Harrison's one that was almost disallowed? Not if he doesn't touch the ball, and isn't in the keeper's way or line of sight. The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there? |
|
|
|
Post by lulworthgas on Oct 28, 2014 12:53:03 GMT
Having looked at it about 10 times, istm Taylor was interfering with play on the fourth goal. Harrison's one that was almost disallowed? Not if he doesn't touch the ball, and isn't in the keeper's way or line of sight. The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there? The other argument is that by Taylor being where he was,the keeper instinctively held his ground in case of a deflection and so it could be argued that he was interfering with play. Fair play to the ref for being strong(weak) enough to overturn the linesman right in front of all those gas fans! |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 28, 2014 14:05:07 GMT
Harrison's one that was almost disallowed? Not if he doesn't touch the ball, and isn't in the keeper's way or line of sight. The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there? The other argument is that by Taylor being where he was,the keeper instinctively held his ground in case of a deflection and so it could be argued that he was interfering with play. Fair play to the ref for being strong(weak) enough to overturn the linesman right in front of all those gas fans! Nah, the ref can't be expected to second-guess what the keeper was thinking. The test is actual physical interference in play, not possible interference in play, by my understanding. So that's touching the ball, obstructing an opponent, distracting an opponent (by obstructing line of sight, or challenging for the ball), or gaining an advantage by receiving a rebound. Benefit of doubt goes to attacking team. Linesman was right to flag, as he couldn't possibly judge interference from his angle so had to alert the ref to the player being offside. Ref was right to give the goal after conferring. |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 28, 2014 14:18:05 GMT
Having looked at it about 10 times, istm Taylor was interfering with play on the fourth goal. Harrison's one that was almost disallowed? Not if he doesn't touch the ball, and isn't in the keeper's way or line of sight. The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there? Yeah. Istm, had Taylor not been there, the keeper would have dived for the ball, instead of setting himself to save a potential shot from him. If you look at the clip and imagine Taylor not being there, the keeper's movement defies explanation. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 28, 2014 14:32:11 GMT
Harrison's one that was almost disallowed? Not if he doesn't touch the ball, and isn't in the keeper's way or line of sight. The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there? Yeah. Istm, had Taylor not been there, the keeper would have dived for the ball, instead of setting himself to save a potential shot from him. If you look at the clip and imagine Taylor not being there, the keeper's movement defies explanation. Doesn't matter, offside is at the moment the ball is played, the goalkeeper's movement was after the ball was played; and besides, Taylor did not physically interfere with play or an opponent. He didn't touch the ball, or prevent an opponent from playing the ball by challenging for it or by obstructing their line of sight of the ball at the moment the ball was played, and he didn't gain an advantage by touching a rebound off the goal frame or an opponent. The laws are very clear nowadays, FIFA Law 11 definitions: In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: • “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition • “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 • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. And anyway, Taylor was virtually on the goal line, how was the keeper setting himself to save a potential shot from him? |
|
|
|
Post by Antonio Fargas on Oct 28, 2014 14:39:20 GMT
Yeah. Istm, had Taylor not been there, the keeper would have dived for the ball, instead of setting himself to save a potential shot from him. If you look at the clip and imagine Taylor not being there, the keeper's movement defies explanation. Doesn't matter, offside is at the moment the ball is played, the goalkeeper's movement was after the ball was played; and besides, Taylor did not physically interfere with play or an opponent. He didn't touch the ball, or prevent an opponent from playing the ball by challenging for it or by obstructing their line of sight of the ball at the moment the ball was played, and he didn't gain an advantage by touching a rebound off the goal frame or an opponent. The laws are very clear nowadays, FIFA Law 11 definitions: In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: • “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition • “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 • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. And anyway, Taylor was virtually on the goal line, how was the keeper setting himself to save a potential shot from him? Yeah. You said "The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there?" I think it's pretty clear it would have been. Again, if you look at his movement, it doesn't make any sense unless you consider Taylor's presence. |
|
faggotygas
Byron Anthony
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 1,862
|
Post by faggotygas on Oct 28, 2014 15:01:31 GMT
Doesn't matter, offside is at the moment the ball is played, the goalkeeper's movement was after the ball was played; and besides, Taylor did not physically interfere with play or an opponent. He didn't touch the ball, or prevent an opponent from playing the ball by challenging for it or by obstructing their line of sight of the ball at the moment the ball was played, and he didn't gain an advantage by touching a rebound off the goal frame or an opponent. The laws are very clear nowadays, FIFA Law 11 definitions: In the context of Law 11 – Offside, the following definitions apply: • “nearer to his opponents’ goal line” means that any part of a player’s head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent. The arms are not included in this definition • “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 • “gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball i. that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goalpost, crossbar or an opponent having been in an offside position ii. that rebounds, is deflected or is played to him from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent, who deliberately plays the ball (except from a deliberate save), is not considered to have gained an advantage. And anyway, Taylor was virtually on the goal line, how was the keeper setting himself to save a potential shot from him? Yeah. You said "The test is - would the outcome have been different if he had not been there?" I think it's pretty clear it would have been. Again, if you look at his movement, it doesn't make any sense unless you consider Taylor's presence. Indeed - 'would' the outcome have been any different - not 'could' the outcome have been any different. With regard to this law anyway, it's not up to the ref to interpret player movements. Anyway, that's just background. The offiside law is very clearly defined now, and if you follow the definitions I copied above, you can't go wrong. |
|
brizzle
Lindsay Parsons
No Buy . . . No Sell!
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,293
|
Post by brizzle on Oct 28, 2014 16:41:45 GMT
Who is the handsome bald chap who gets in the way of the camera at the start ? Gwyn Jones . . . looking for a new contract, perhaps? Or maybe it's you.  |
|
