Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

Kuyt's 'Offside' Goal


John am Rhein

Recommended Posts

What are views on that?

 

I've only seen a replay in a semi-chaotic pub and from what poor view I had, I thought he was perhaps in an offside position - far from sure though.

 

But what about the active/passive phases of play nonsense? Even if he WAS in an offside position, such goals sometimes get given - especially if the scorer is called Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are views on that?

 

I've only seen a replay in a semi-chaotic pub and from what poor view I had, I thought he was perhaps in an offside position - far from sure though.

 

But what about the active/passive phases of play nonsense? Even if he WAS in an offside position, such goals sometimes get given - especially if the scorer is called Ruud Van Nistelrooy.

 

Sky aren't showing it on their news bulletins, which makes me think it was onside. I thought it was on last night, but I was lashed, and very very biased indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technically he was EXACTLY INLINE which according to the referee recommendations means he should be considered ONSIDE

so yes the goal should have stood

 

Watch the replay and watch the line they draw to show the positions Kuyt is EXACTLY INLINE and therefore ONSIDE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyldesley was twittering on about "any part of the body which can be used to propel the ball" being infront and while his feet were in line, his head was infront.

 

Though as noted above, had it been RVN, it would have been a goal....

 

Not to mention the "phase of play" thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thought he was off, just

unsurprising the lino gave it, it was v. tight

...and when it is too tight to call, the laws state the advantage should go the attacking side - so it was still onside even then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the linesman could see the player playing Kuyt onside as Kuyt's body was obscuring him.

 

It was a very harsh decision - I reckon 9 times out of 10 it would have been allowed to stand. Great finish too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and when it is too tight to call, the laws state the advantage should go the attacking side - so it was still onside even then.

 

 

exactly, add to that the fact that freezing the tv frame at the exact point it leaves SG's boot is not an exact science. There are probably 3 or 4 frames you could use. Think it's clear that it's not clear he was off, and therefore should be ON. That said, hard to blame lino I guess when we haven't seen it from his view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and when it is too tight to call, the laws state the advantage should go the attacking side - so it was still onside even then.

1 - i'm not sure the laws do say that

2 - the defender in question was obscured by Kuyt from the linos view

3 - we won anyway, who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was an interesting shot on the telly after the goal - which I thought was harsh to disallow but close enough to at least understand why the linesman jerked his flag up (jerk being the operative word there ;) ) ... Anyhow, Pierluigi Collina was in the crowd and after the goal was disallowed the camera switched to him and he's wagging his finger at someone with him and looks like he's giving out yards. Definitely got the impression he was saying... "that should have been a goal" :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 - i'm not sure the laws do say that

2 - the defender in question was obscured by Kuyt from the linos view

3 - we won anyway, who cares?

 

1. They do

2. That is very likely true

3. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 - i'm not sure the laws do say that

2 - the defender in question was obscured by Kuyt from the linos view

3 - we won anyway, who cares?

 

 

the law doesnt say that, but in the last directive from UEFA there has to be clarity between the attacker and defender...there wasnt last night

 

and I WAS surprised it was given.....you normally see Lino's let them go

 

but you are right, it doesnt f***ing matter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kuyt couldn't possibly have scored. We were playing for penalties all the way through Extra Time, so shouldn't even have been attacking at that point.

 

Or so Jose says.

Of course, he's right. Pepe was much the busier of the tgwo keepers, as can be seen at his annoyance at having to fold away his newspaper when catching the odd punt upfield. He was really cross for the penalties - had to take his slippers off and put his boots back and all.

 

the law doesnt say that, but in the last directive from UEFA there has to be clarity between the attacker and defender...there wasnt last night

 

and I WAS surprised it was given.....you normally see Lino's let them go

 

but you are right, it doesnt f***ing matter

How's the gout this morning Dave? The tingling in the left arm? Do you have any Chelsea workmates you can get at today :D;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, he's right. Pepe was much the busier of the tgwo keepers, as can be seen at his annoyance at having to fold away his newspaper when catching the odd punt upfield. He was really cross for the penalties - had to take his slippers off and put his boots back and all.

How's the gout this morning Dave? The tingling in the left arm? Do you have any Chelsea workmates you can get at today :D;)

 

 

see new thread (e-mail from Chelsea fan)

 

gout is just fine mate!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...