| Views based on highlights... 23:42 - Mar 10 with 762 views | redrickstuhaart |
Had the chances to be up in the first half despite the general view that it was poor.
Stoke's first goal was offside. Azon was not fouled in the build up.
Penalty decision absolutely scandalous. Referees should not guess. He did not see a foul but went on the fall. |  |
| |  |
| It's scandalous on 23:51 - Mar 10 with 711 views | unstableblue |
The ref is a distance away, but with line of sight
But there is just virtually zero contact and that is obvious
I know we weren't good enough first half
But if we'd got the definite pen for the assault on Kipre Saturday and tonight had been waved away - we'd be above Boro.. let that sink in |  |
| |
| Views based on highlights... on 23:55 - Mar 10 with 685 views | FrimleyBlue |
Wasnt offside apparently as furlong counted as a player on the goaline even tho he was in the net. ( according to sky) |  |
| |
| Views based on highlights... on 00:01 - Mar 11 with 674 views | SuffolkPunchFC |
| Views based on highlights... on 23:55 - Mar 10 by FrimleyBlue |
Wasnt offside apparently as furlong counted as a player on the goaline even tho he was in the net. ( according to sky) |
I’d need to rewatch it to see how Furlong ended up there. Was he forced there with a challenge by a Stoke player?
According to the IFAB Laws of the Game (Law 11), a player in an offside affecting position who is forced there that does not interfere with play, should not be penalised. [Post edited 11 Mar 0:08]
| | | |
| Views based on highlights... on 00:03 - Mar 11 with 667 views | Smoresy |
Yep Stoke's first was onside, commentators had it right.
Can't speak for what the ref thought he saw or if he thought he was guessing. | | | |
| Views based on highlights... on 00:06 - Mar 11 with 657 views | Smoresy |
| Views based on highlights... on 00:01 - Mar 11 by SuffolkPunchFC |
I’d need to rewatch it to see how Furlong ended up there. Was he forced there with a challenge by a Stoke player?
According to the IFAB Laws of the Game (Law 11), a player in an offside affecting position who is forced there that does not interfere with play, should not be penalised. [Post edited 11 Mar 0:08]
|
Suggest this is the more pertinent section, but no he was inside the goal of his own accord.
"A defending player who leaves the field of play without the referee’s permission shall be considered to be on the goal line or touchline for the purposes of offside until the next stoppage in play or until the defending team has played the ball towards the halfway line and it is outside its penalty area. If the player left the field of play deliberately, the player must be cautioned when the ball is next out of play." | | | |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:11 - Mar 11 with 629 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Views based on highlights... on 00:03 - Mar 11 by Smoresy |
Yep Stoke's first was onside, commentators had it right.
Can't speak for what the ref thought he saw or if he thought he was guessing. |
Furlong has entirely naturally gone out of play by running back.
The idea that he is somehow active for an offside decision is absurd.
When was that rule changed? [Post edited 11 Mar 0:14]
| |
| |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:19 - Mar 11 with 600 views | Smoresy |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:11 - Mar 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Furlong has entirely naturally gone out of play by running back.
The idea that he is somehow active for an offside decision is absurd.
When was that rule changed? [Post edited 11 Mar 0:14]
|
Makes good sense to me, without wishing to appear argumentative. Stops defenders cynically running off the pitch in the hope of manufacturing offside when caught in a bad position. Don't know when this rule was created. | | | |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:20 - Mar 11 with 580 views | redrickstuhaart |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:19 - Mar 11 by Smoresy |
Makes good sense to me, without wishing to appear argumentative. Stops defenders cynically running off the pitch in the hope of manufacturing offside when caught in a bad position. Don't know when this rule was created. |
Its a nonsense. If a defender has tumbled out of play, attackers shouldnt have an advantage of a relaxed offside rule. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:25 - Mar 11 with 556 views | Smoresy |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:20 - Mar 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Its a nonsense. If a defender has tumbled out of play, attackers shouldnt have an advantage of a relaxed offside rule. |
Each to their own, I don't see why a defender deserves to be protected from onside rules in those circumstances. Glad those in charge agree with me lol, despite the consequence for tonight. | | | |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 05:47 - Mar 11 with 445 views | mellowblue |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:20 - Mar 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Its a nonsense. If a defender has tumbled out of play, attackers shouldnt have an advantage of a relaxed offside rule. |
Rule has been around a long time, but rarely needs to be enforced though. Presumably it works the other way round so that if a striker ends up off the pitch he would effectively be making himself offside or would he get away with it as he would not be affecting play? If so seems unfair to the defender who has tumbled out of play. | | | |
| Views based on highlights... on 06:03 - Mar 11 with 418 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
We never looked like scoring in the first half, created very little in terms of quality- we managed 0 shots on goal, and an xg of 0.2 | | | |
| Views based on highlights... on 06:30 - Mar 11 with 358 views | iamatractorboy |
I actually think the OP has got it back to front; their first goal definitely not offside, but Azon was fouled (shirt pulled at the shoulders and then pushed over). Unfortunately the Boy Who Cried Wolf act counted against him so no dice from the ref.
Overall a fair result but bloody hell was that pen hard to take in the context of what happened against Leicester. Despite that I can see why it was given with two defenders putting their hands on the attacker (VAR would not have ruled that out). | | | |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 07:35 - Mar 11 with 236 views | bsw72 |
| Views based on highlights... (n/t) on 00:11 - Mar 11 by redrickstuhaart |
Furlong has entirely naturally gone out of play by running back.
The idea that he is somehow active for an offside decision is absurd.
When was that rule changed? [Post edited 11 Mar 0:14]
|
Law was clarified in 2009 to make it easier to referee else it would be another thing that a ref would have to consider whether a player has deliberately, accidentally or been forced out of play. |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
