LFEE Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 If Gouffran was in-between the ball and Hart then it shouldn't of stood but he was on the outside and 4 yards ahead of Hart so not interfering with Hart diving for it hence why i think the goal should've stood... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 FWIW I think it's a goal as well, it's just that it's a question of a difference of opinion or judgement rather than fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilson Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 I just don't think he was interfering at all, Hart was never going to get it, he was rooted to the floor and didn't even try for it, not because Gouffran put him off but because he didn't have a hope in hell of getting to it. It's bollocks. Hart didn't even know what he was appealing for like the rest of their players. Bellends. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted January 15, 2014 Share Posted January 15, 2014 The problem is the rule is not black and white. This is becoming an issue with quite a few rules in football which causes incidents like the goal. I honestly think it should go back to your on/offside even if active / inactive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe_next_year Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01q03n2 this been posted? 9 year old Newcastle fan on 606 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Away Toon Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 It was a goal and should have stood, and MYM should have been given a straight red card. He's lucky the referee saw it and gave him a yellow or he would have got done on video evidence. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 MYM should've been given a medal. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 The problem is the rule is not black and white. This is becoming an issue with quite a few rules in football which causes incidents like the goal. I honestly think it should go back to your on/offside even if active / inactive. Very few of the Laws of the Game are black and white......almost everything is based on the referee's opinion of what happened. And that's where the two sides fall apart because neither have the same opinion as the referee. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I just don't think he was interfering at all, Hart was never going to get it, he was rooted to the floor and didn't even try for it, not because Gouffran put him off but because he didn't have a hope in hell of getting to it. It's bollocks. Hart didn't even know what he was appealing for like the rest of their players. Bellends. Exactly....Hart did the usual desperate waive for offside that is common to all defenders who ****** up and just let a player past them. They desperately wave for offside hoping that the AR will rescue them, and in most cases they get no flag (and the AR secretly laughing at them for just how far on-side they were holding the player). In this case, too many additional factors figured into the decision that the referee and AR made together. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 This is my view as a referee (of approx 400 U16-U19 games) Goufran was clearly in an offside position, but that is not an offense. To be penalised for being in an offside position you must ALSO be interfering with play or an opponent: Interferring with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a teammate- Should not apply because Gouffran did not play/touch the ball interferring with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing the ball by clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision or movement - should not apply because Gouffran was not blocking the line of vision and did not prevent Hart from moving or by making a gesture or movement, which in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts the opponent - this should also not apply because Gouffran did not pretent to play the ball, did not attempt to deceive that he would play the ball and did nothing more than evade making contact with the ball So why did the referee crew waive off the goal.....I believe (and several National referees in the US on a referee forum believe) that the referee and the AR each had half of the information needed to make a decision, but neither had the full picture - and putting together these two halves they got the decision wrong. The AR knows that Goufran is in an offside position - but he doesn't "know" if Gouffran made contact with the ball (because from his position on the sideline, with the aspect of the shot), he cannot see a deflection of the balls trajectory, and likely cannot hear it either. So he knows that the player is in an offside position, and he thinks that the ball may/may not have touched Gouffran. From the referee's position - he too cannot really see if the balls trajectory was changed by Gouffran but he will likely suspect it. Watching this for the first time on TV it wasn't clear if Gouffran did indeed avoid contact or not, and the TV angle (see pic) was much better than the referee's position. So the referee is wondering if there was contact from an offside player or not. The first thing the referee will do on seeing the ball enter the goal is to check his AR for a reaction. If the AR is running up back field (to get into position for a kick off) then that is the signal to the referee that the goal is good. If the Flag is up, then the signal is that there was an infraction. And if the AR is standing to attention, and not moving/signalling, then that is the signal to the referee that he has a question/information about the play and thinks the referee should discuss it with them. The neutral stance is designed not to box the referee into a decision that they may not want to make (neither signals a goal or no goal) and allows for a discussion. Now the referee and AR discuss what each saw/thought happened. AR will confirm that player was in an offside position. Now they will confirm if the player interfered with play/opponent. Based on my training and instruction on the LOTG, I can only assume that the referee (and maybe AR) thought that the ball touched Gouffran and was deflected into the goal....and based on that opinion (incorrect as it turns out), the right decision was made according to LOTG. There was no blocking of vision, or blocking of movement - in fact Hart never moved. There was no attempt to deceive or distract the opponent - Hart never even saw Gouffran until after the ball was in the net. BUT neither referee or AR had the necessary line of sight to see if there was a deflection or not. I summise, that each suspected that there might have been contact, and that it was more likely than not that there had been contact. And therefore they convinced each other than there was contact with the ball. At this level of play I do not beleive that a referee would be unaware of the Laws of the Game or how to apply them. They have too many games under their belts, and have been through too many assessments and game reviews to not know the LOTG. BUT they are always basing their decisions on their OPINION of what happened, and they get one view - without replay or slo-mo, regardless of their position on the field or what is happening around them. And they are also subject to the natural pressure of the game - pressure from the players, pressure from the expectation of a perfect game and importantly, pressure from the media (and match assessment) review they know is coming after the game. And so it comes down to a simple mistake by the referee (or AR) in their opinion in seeing what happened (or didn't happen) and from that bad data, the decision process was fatally flawed and produced an incorrect decision. They thought (in my opinion) and maybe convinced each other, that there was contact with the ball by Gouffran and therefore there was an offside infraction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exiled in Texas Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Yeah, yeah I know..... TL;DR just had to get that off my chest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpal78 Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 I hate to say this, but I can see the arguement here: `Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside. ` By ducking he was interfering with play by distracting the goal keeper. IF gouff handt been standing in the flight of the ball, then the goal was legit. or at least jones would had to find another excuse to earn his 100k. city pay bonus. You're right on the first part i.e. "Had Gouffran not ducked, the shot would have hit him.. making it offside". But how in the world is him ducking deemed an inteference with play? He neither blocked Hart's view nor blocked Hart's movement in any way. In fact look at the replay again, Hart was not even looking at Goufran and if anything he ducked away from Hart. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest zicomartin Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/15/article-2540165-1A55D71800000578-417_634x526.jpg Nasri doing the quenelle... wonder if he will get a ban too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 At this level of play I do not believe that a referee would be unaware of the Laws of the Game or how to apply them. They have too many games under their belts, and have been through too many assessments and game reviews to not know the LOTG. You are talking about the referee who gave the infamous beach ball goal though which is a clear violation of the 'outside agent' rule though. No doubt he's also one of the worst refs when it comes to using flawed interpretations to cover up for his errors - signalling for a Norwich throw-in to proceed only for Fer to knock it into an empty Cardiff net, then claiming it didn't count cos he didn't blow the whistle for the throw-in (which ref does?); pulling Ben Arfa back on a counter-attack when the advantage rule should have been applied, cos moments before an Everton FK or penalty was wrongly ruled off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/15/article-2540165-1A55D71800000578-417_634x526.jpg Nasri doing the quenelle... wonder if he will get a ban too. He needs to get some new clothes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest palnese Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 120k a week and he can only afford one outfit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Haris Vuckic Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 To be fair those are Vegan shoes he's wearing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newsted Posted January 16, 2014 Share Posted January 16, 2014 Yeah, yeah I know..... TL;DR just had to get that off my chest Nah, good post, sounds about right. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AyeDubbleYoo Posted January 17, 2014 Share Posted January 17, 2014 That photo is pretty clear TBH, especially with the position of the ref. Don't see how he could have thought Gouff was stopping Hart getting it, from that angle. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benwell Lad Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Even had Tiote's goal not been disallowed it's not certain if we would have ended up with a result against them. However having watched them again recently, and indeed last night, seeing the level they are at, it was a really excellent performance. They are on a different planet and since their early season wobbles I don't think anyone has played as well against them as we did. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now