• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

The Footie Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 15344
  • Start date Start date
Just to summarise:

If you a utd fan then it's a goal

If follow any other team, or even no team but just enjoy football, then he is offside, he is interfering and the goal should have been disallowed.

By the letter of this particularly stupid rule ................................ it's a goal.
The end, hopefully.
 
View attachment 45998

If you take this picture as an example - the GK is focusing no doubt on the player closer to the ball

It’s hard to look at that picture and decide that Rashford is not interfering in the play at all
Great post. The image perfectly shows the goalkeepers eye direction, and indeed there is absolutely zero doubt he is focused on Rashford, and not the other Utd player with his right foot in a position ready to kick the ball.

You should be a barrister, if you aren't one already :)
 
are we not allowed to debate that we think the rule is an ass then (as mentioned repeatedly)?

Absolutely we are.

But we keep reading repeated comment regarding why the referee made the wrong decision. He didn’t. The application of the offside law (which I say again is an utter ass) was correct.

I think if it’s CLEAR that a defender was distracted, then that should amount to offside. I’m not sure in yesterday’s circumstances that is was even clear. Phil has even gone as far as posting an image depicting Edison’s back, and then made the huge leap of faith to say that the goalkeeper was focused on Rashford.

If that’s the best evidence we can come up with then, even in the event that the offside law was changed to include a defender being distracted by a player in an offside position, the goal would probably still have been allowed.
 
My take on it
Brilliant!!!

Ref moves the ball back for a free kick from where Trippier wants to take it from. Marks it with his foam. Ref turns his back and Tripps picks up the blob of foam and moves it forward!!!!
yes but that’s why he hit the wall.
if he had left it where it was he would have more room.

shocking dive longstaff. But two hands in the back of the neck isn’t a foul but a drop ball, refs having a mare.
let’s hope there is no offside goals.
 
Very similar to the Leicester game last week.

Newcastle are in need of a cutting edge.

If Guimares is injured he needs to come off...we have a League Cup semi-final in a few weeks....must take priority over the league.
 
So are 7 and 8 year contracts to spread out the amortisation of the transfer fee the latest way to get round FFP?
Until you realise you have signed a plank that you can't get rid of and are stuck with them for even longer. How much deadwood would teams be stuck with if they really start to go that route?
 
If Guimares is injured he needs to come off...we have a League Cup semi-final in a few weeks....must take priority over the league.

Really? Given how open the race is for Champion’s League qualification, and Newcastle’s current position in that race, would you really rather win the League Cup than qualify for the CL?

I kind of get the need for silverware after a long barren period, but the long term benefits of CL qualification, not least in attracting world class players, must outweigh the satisfaction of winning a League Cup.
 
Absolutely we are.

But we keep reading repeated comment regarding why the referee made the wrong decision. He didn’t. The application of the offside law (which I say again is an utter ass) was correct.

I think if it’s CLEAR that a defender was distracted, then that should amount to offside. I’m not sure in yesterday’s circumstances that is was even clear. Phil has even gone as far as posting an image depicting Edison’s back, and then made the huge leap of faith to say that the goalkeeper was focused on Rashford.

If that’s the best evidence we can come up with then, even in the event that the offside law was changed to include a defender being distracted by a player in an offside position, the goal would probably still have been allowed.

It must have been a distraction, you have a centre forward running through the middle, the line is looking for offside and you are telling me the GK and defenders aren't aware of him and it is not a distraction, I am sure if it was for Cities 2nd goal UTD would have been in uproar.

As a neutral I would expect that to be ruled offside for both team, being there and running in between the defenders and leading the attack he must cause some form of distraction. We have so over complicated the offsisde rule it is a joke
 
Top