Fulham v Spurs Match Thread

[Wsussexspur]

Good win yesterday. Bit of luck with the winner but we are due some luck this season. From the highlights looked good game! VDV what skill to set up Pavs goal! Very happy with the win as Craven cottage is difficult place to go at the best of times.

 

[Mr Pink]

Jamie Redknapp has just said on Sky Sports that the goal shouldnt have stood because he knows Gallas touched it...

Oh FFS, did he really? A bit needless really.

 

[SpurSince57]

Has he had his Labrador checked out recently?

 

[Yid-ol]

That's completely irrelevant isn't it? The only question is whether Gallas was active or not, the issue of a deflection is only raised as the ref might have initially thought Gallas got a touch as the ball moved slightly.

I was meaning for there one in the first half where a deflection went to a player who was offside but it was ok to play on, i said it happend to both teams and both got the same decision so its all good, still stand by my statement. If an attacking team hits the ball and it hits off a defending team player and falls to someone offside or someone offside tries to play the ball then they are now in play and should be offside

 

[WhiteHart4Ever]

I was meaning for there one in the first half where a deflection went to a player who was offside but it was ok to play on, i said it happend to both teams and both got the same decision so its all good, still stand by my statement. If an attacking team hits the ball and it hits off a defending team player and falls to someone offside or someone offside tries to play the ball then they are now in play and should be offside

I'd say offside, though questionable. The rule refers to being "active", and as Gallas is actively trying to touch the ball it's irrelevant whether he actually touches it. The possible counter argument (deflection is also irrelevant as he's offside when the ball is played), however, would be that while Gallas attempts to play the ball he doesnt and his movement does not affect the goalkeeper and as such Gallas' movement towards the ball has no relevance for the outcome.

 

[stemark44]

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.

Did I not already say this!

 

[BringBack_leGin]

If you did then good on you. This thread has been so long and winding that good points are easily missed stenners.

 

[Mr Pink]

How? A slight touch from the defender doesn't cancel offside. Gallas didn't commit an offside offense but it wasn't because there was a touch by a defender.

He wasn't interfering with play when Hudd strikes the ball - he wasn't in line of the ball and blocking their keeper's sight of it. When it touches Baird he then tries to play it and misses it but isn't offside at that point because of the touch from Baird so it matters not.

The touch from Baird is crucial and why the goal was allowed to stand from the official's point of view.

 

[talkshowhost86]

I think this whole debate, plus the debate over the Arteta goal and Blackpool's disallowed goal suggests that the rules are a bit daft really. How they expect the linesman to decide who is or who isn't interfering I'll never understand and when there's a box full of players it must be almost impossible for the ref to see who's interfering.

The Everton goal for example...surely the Yak was standing right in front of Reina when the ball was hit and he was in an offside position yet apparently that was okay because he wasn't interfering...what?!

It would make things easier if players were just offside when they're in an offside position.

 

[Mr Pink]

I think this whole debate, plus the debate over the Arteta goal and Blackpool's disallowed goal suggests that the rules are a bit daft really. How they expect the linesman to decide who is or who isn't interfering I'll never understand and when there's a box full of players it must be almost impossible for the ref to see who's interfering.

The Everton goal for example...surely the Yak was standing right in front of Reina when the ball was hit and he was in an offside position yet apparently that was okay because he wasn't interfering...what?!

It would make things easier if players were just offside when they're in an offside position.

I agree with most of that mate and your right the Yak was right infront of Reina.

As Shankly once said 'if they are not interfering with play what the hell are they doing then!' Says it all really.

 

[camaj]

just wached the fulham game, played very well. VDV and bale we're pretty quiet and lennon and bae had great games