Fulham v Spurs Match Thread

[cwy21]

There was an incident in the first half when a ball hit one of our players and ran to a Fulham striker who was in an offside position,the ref gave them the advantage because the ball came off one of our players last therefore he wasn't offside.
The ref applied the same rule to Huddlestone's shot which hit one of their defenders on the way through thus making the position of Gallas irrelevant.
It was a goal and justice was done!

No offense, but this is some of the dumbest logic I've heard. Why would one mistake justify a second?

 

[antiloqus]

No offense, but this is some of the dumbest logic I've heard. Why would one mistake justify a second?

Parity? :shrug:

 

[mdharris]

Thought vdv came too deep too often. Made things happen, but left pav isolated up top when balls came in frome wide areas. Still looked lively. Lennon and hutton both looked confident, running forward. When lennon came on the balance changed, we looked more dangerous. I'm glad for him, he needs to keep working hardan but he also needs to be cofortable taking risks and going at players, which he did today, it bodes well.

 

[ealingspur]

(((4*6)/2)^2)/6-22=_____

4 x 6 = 24
24 / 2 = 12
12 ^ 2 = 144
144 / 6 = 24
24 - 22 = 2

Nice. repped.

 

[stemark44]

No offense, but this is some of the dumbest logic I've heard. Why would one mistake justify a second?

You obviously don't know the rules of soccer and you really should read up on them.

 

[cwy21]

You obviously don't know the rules of soccer and you really should read up on them.

I'd wager I know the laws of the game better then anyone on this board, or at least I'm in the 99.9th percentile.

 

[stemark44]

I'd wager I know the laws of the game better then anyone on this board, or at least I'm in the 99.9th percentile.

You still don't know the offside rule!

 

[cwy21]

You still don't know the offside rule!

What do you think I don't know?

If its the defelction, then here is the relevant part of the law.

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:
• interfering with play or
• interfering with an opponent or
• gaining an advantage by being in that position

...

“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball
that rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an
offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent
having been in an offside position

Like I've said 3 or 4 times now, it doesn't matter because Gallas didn't play the ball. All I've been trying to say is the deflection didn't reset offside.

 

[BorisTM]

What do you think I don't know?

If its the defelction, then here is the relevant part of the law.



Like I've said 3 or 4 times now, it doesn't matter because Gallas didn't play the ball. All I've been trying to say is the deflection didn't reset offside.

nicely explained, now if you don't mind would you explain last year's disallowing of Defoe's goal against Liverpool away?

 

[cwy21]

nicely explained, now if you don't mind would you explain last year's disallowing of Defoe's goal against Liverpool away?

The reason in law was interfering with an opponent. The assistant felt the pressure Defoe put on the defender before he touched the ball was enough to judge him as interfering with him.

“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 movements or making a gesture or
movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an
opponent

It was a bizarre sequence of events.

 

[BringBack_leGin]

I also remember Iversens brilliant lob to put us in the WC99 final being described as not offside by the pundits because it took a deflection of the defender en route to him from Ferdinand's back heel, and I'm pretty sure Iversen was interfering with play!

 

[cwy21]

I also remember Iversens brilliant lob to put us in the WC99 final being described as not offside by the pundits because it took a deflection of the defender en route to him from Ferdinand's back heel, and I'm pretty sure Iversen was interfering with play!

FIFA changed their interpretation in 2005 (I think). Back in the 90s if you made an attempt to play the ball you were deemed to be interfering with play.

 

[BorisTM]

The reason in law was interfering with an opponent. The assistant felt the pressure Defoe put on the defender before he touched the ball was enough to judge him as interfering with him.



It was a bizarre sequence of events.

NO way man it has to be something else. Defoe was in offside position true, but then he pulled and was good 7-8 yards behind Kyrgiakos not really putting presure on him - Kyrgiakos had the whole time in the world to play the ball to Reina.

Look at the image in my signature and tell me why would anyone call this interference?

 

[StockSpur]

phew

 

[DogsOfWar]

My view on that sort of offside is simple, if Gallas hadn't have been there would the ball still have gone in the net?

I think that's a definite yes so it's not offside as he's not interfering.

 

[SpurSince57]

Although, as Danny Blanchflower is reputed to have said, 'If a man is in an offside position and not interfering with play, why isn't he?' :grin:

 

[CosmicHotspur]

Unfortunately, I couldn't find a decent stream yesterday although I saw parts of the game and I listened to the BBC Radio London commentary on line.

What I did see was enjoyable, although the second half seemed to get a bit scrappy.

Danny B was right if he really did say that :hump: - it was a fair goal from what I could see.

Three very valuable points.

 

[rebrab]

(((4*6)/2)^2)/6-22=_____

when f(x) = 4x-8
{[5! - f '(x)]/f '(x) - √625}/(9^2 - 8^2 - 15)

 

[BringBack_leGin]

The Goals on Sunday guy believe the ref made the correct call on the Hudd goal, and showed why for a completely different reason to that which anybody has given. Gallas, offside, when the ball was struck, was not interfering with play. Then it hit Baird and deflected in. He was potentially interfering with play from the Baird deflection, but that makes no difference because Baird plays for the other side. He was not interfering when Huddlestone struck the ball, and his potential interference did not begin until after the ball came off Baird. Not offside.

I like this argument. It's certainly better than mine.

 

[ajspurs]

It's annoying how most of the attention concerning such a wonderful goal is not on the goal itself, but whether it was actually a legit goal. Shame.