Disallowed goal for the Barcodes

[Ted Hughes]

Even if the ref was wrong (which imo is not the case) it should not be any bigger argument than ours would be, had it stood.

I shouted offside, when it went in. But if it had stood, I would have had a quick moan, like with Swansea's definitely offside goal last week, & on with the game.

This has been made into some kind of cataclysmic event wheras it was actually a marginal decision, where the ref has followed the rules. It's not as if Garcia has run up behind a Newcastle player and kicked him into fucking hospital. It's not as if we have cheated or done anything wrong. And we actually won 2-0, & had quite a few other opportunities to score more.

Basically: WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY MOANING ABOUT ?

[Bridge'srightfoot]

It didn't though, which is why they changed the rule. According to that rule both of Dzeko's goals against West Ham should have been chalked off as Kolarov and Clichy were the furthest men forward. So you think every time a player gets to the byline for a pullback, the goal should be disallowed if they are the furthest forward when the shot's being taken?

It changed to make things more 'exciting' which is has, admittedly, but its still wrong. We wont go through every goal that may/ not have stood nor every conceivable mix of probable scenarios that could result in offside or not. Regardless to say most of the rule is interpretation by the officials, how many times have we, and often the sky clan, thought a player should have been offside for interfering and yet the goal given and no offside? Plenty. Again its a change that, in my opinion has caused more controversy and shite than goals not being given when they crossed the line... And yet they just stick with it.

The problem is for me there is no clear answer. Like I said I don't think goals like the ones Dzeko scored against West Ham should be disallowed. It would also be a massive kick in the teeth for fullbacks or overlapping wingers, they'd almost always be offside. It would mean you can never pull the ball back.

For the context and good of the game they can't go back to that rule.

[Slim]

[City64]

No cunt from tyneside can count to three so no wonder they cant see it was offside ......

[Elvistheblue]

I've just got back from magpie land, and on the way home all you had on the 5 live phone is was Geordies complaining about the referee and the disallowed goal.....the referee was bad for both sides today by the way....but the worse decision he made, wasn't disallowing the goal....it was for not sending Yanga-Mbiwa off for an atrocious tackle on Nasri.

Everyone is moaning about whether it was or wasn't a goal, and you've got a player here that received a tackle that could have his World Cup dreams smashed, could have serious repercussions on his playing career, all by an inadequate little twat, who only got a yellow card, and will not get a ban for which his tackle deserved....and all the Geordies are bothered about...and the media to be fair.... is whether a goal should stand or not.

[budfox]

Didn't mind the barcodes too much before today, football's great underachievers with passionate and loyal fans. Now I just see them as a bunch of whingeing cunts with an even bigger cunt for a manager.

[Twobob]

The problem is for me there is no clear answer. Like I said I don't think goals like the ones Dzeko scored against QPR should be disallowed. It would also be a massive kick in the teeth for fullbacks or overlapping wingers, they'd almost always be offside. It would mean you can never pull the ball back. For the context and good of the game they can't go back to that rule.

There is a clear answer in that the ruleset is too complex and certainly needs to be simplified. Now they've ventured down this road they cant revert back but they certainly need looking at.

In either context the goal would have been disallowed, but the decision to be taken In seconds as to wether a player(s) is interfering with play is what complicates matters - in my opinion, anyone in the penalty box is interfering with play at some level but according to the ruled, that isn't necessarily the case. We ran the risk of it being allowed if another linesman had the idea that the player was not interfering with play.

Oh then you also have phases - what the hell is that all about? - those are what my moods go through hourly.

[Blue Since 76]

One player is stood in the six yard box between the goalposts. If that can't be counted as interfering with play, I don't know what does.

Unfortunate for Tiote, as I don't think Hart could have got near it, but it doesn't change the fact someone was offside.

[Blue Since 76]

MOTD quote party of the offside rule to 'prove' it was a goal. Interesting.

[branny]

They.should have scored another four then nobody would have give a shit like when Negredo had a perfectly good goal disallowed against them.

[bigblue]

One player is stood in the six yard box between the goalposts. If that can't be counted as interfering with play, I don't know what does.

Unfortunate for Tiote, as I don't think Hart could have got near it, but it doesn't change the fact someone was offside.

It you think about it for more than 1/2 a second, people should realize that Hart would have had to dive behind (or even into) the player to make the save. Not in the line of sight my arse

MOTD and especially danny mills are a grade A group of cunts. It looks like it physically pains him to say anything positive about City and lawrenson is just too miserable of a person to put on TV.

You'd think a player that was paid by our club for doing fuck all for 5 YEARS would be a little more grateful. He was one of the worst players to feature for us in the past 15 years and couldn't even get into the side 8 years ago. Announced his retirement through injury DAYS after our contract with him ran out. Our very own Winston Bolgrade (or wayne bridge). So how is he remotely qualified to have an opinion about our club (or even football in general)? FUCK OFF

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Didn't mind the barcodes too much before today, football's great underachievers with passionate and loyal fans. Now I just see them as a bunch of whingeing cunts with an even bigger cunt for a manager.

The first time I ever heard 'where were you when you were shit' was at that hole of a ground. From a bunch of fans that couldn't manage 10 thousand until Keegan and Premier League football turned up. Biggest shower of shithouses outside Arsenal.

[getdressedmctavish]

Going with Doug on this one, lol.Though apparently there is some debate among the refs. More worried about why we were getting mullered at the time. Why was a clearly unfit Ya Ya playing there of all places?

[Socrates]

There were THREE barcodes in offside positions, one was between Hart and the ball and another was in the six yard box preventing Hart diving across freely. The fact that the precedents are for such goals to be given is irrelevant as I think those interpretations are wrong. I've argued many times that you cannot be that close to the keeper and not interfering with play!

[Beefymcfc]

There were THREE barcodes in offside positions, one was between Hart and the ball and another was in the six yard box preventing Hart diving across freely. The fact that the precedents are for such goals to be given is irrelevant as I think those interpretations are wrong. I've argued many times that you cannot be that close to the keeper and not interfering with play!

I was the one to mention precedence and I totally agree with you and have argued the point many times before. However, the fact that these goals are regularly given does have a baring on the subject and is very relevent.

I remember one that went for Blackburn a few years back when Dunn was clearly offside when retrieving the ball. That stood and I was fuming. There's plenty to go off and I'm sure that there was a similar situation this season when our very own Gareth Barry (for Everton) was in an offside position when the shot came in. He was stood in the line of the keeper and it even looked like he could've got a knick on the ball before it went in; he definately moved just before the ball passed him.

Either way, the ref said no goal. He's a useless twat but that'll do for me.

[Avalon]

He was not in the way of Hart and was not interfering with play. Goal should have stood. Hart didn't even attempt to save it.

Cabaye should have been send off. And the guy whom forced Nasri off also should have been send off.

[dario2739]

Way I see it Gouffran was in the balls path - if he had stood still it would have hit him, so he had to move in order for it to go in, which makes him active in my book which means the decision was correct!

[Avalon]

I don't think he was interfering with the play, he was avoiding it.
The only saving grace I can think of is that he might have blocked Hart from diving for the ball, in which case he was interfering.

[Chinners]

If one of my players is on the pitch and not interferring with play (whether offside or not), then what the bloody hell is he doing on the pitch in the first place!
B.Clough

[john@staustell]

Way I see it Gouffran was in the balls path - if he had stood still it would have hit him, so he had to move in order for it to go in, which makes him active in my book which means the decision was correct!

I agree this would have put the keeper off as it looked like it would hit the player. The odd thing is why the toon players made no attempt to come out at all.

However I'd be seriously pissed off if we had that disallowed