November 25, 2017, 04:23:40 AM

Author Topic: Stoke City v Everton  (Read 25160 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

May 02, 2010, 01:37:19 AM
Reply #210
Offline

blargins

NSNO Subscriber
Vic was offside.
"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." Anais Nin

May 02, 2010, 01:51:41 AM
Reply #211
Offline

.Rimbo.



May 02, 2010, 02:03:47 AM
Reply #212
Online

Ridge


Are you considered interferring with play for obscuring a players view of the ball?


May 02, 2010, 02:04:59 AM
Reply #213
Offline

.Rimbo.


Are you considered interferring with play for obscuring a players view of the ball?

Obviously it depends. Considering it was the goalkeeper though, yes.

May 02, 2010, 02:15:21 AM
Reply #214
Online

Ridge


Obviously it depends. Considering it was the goalkeeper though, yes.
I'm not convinced that has ever been used before. If you impeed or obstruct the keepers attempt to get the ball, then fair enough, free kick. But I can't remember too many teams getting an offside for less involvement than Anichebe in that move.

May 02, 2010, 02:18:42 AM
Reply #215
Offline

.Rimbo.


I'm not convinced that has ever been used before. If you impeed or obstruct the keepers attempt to get the ball, then fair enough, free kick. But I can't remember too many teams getting an offside for less involvement than Anichebe in that move.

It is the law though. It is just seldom applied.

It wasn't like Collina vs. Villareal or Clive Thomas/Graham Poll vs. "them".


May 02, 2010, 02:26:51 AM
Reply #216
Online

Ridge


It is the law though. It is just seldom applied.

It wasn't like Collina vs. Villareal or Clive Thomas/Graham Poll vs. "them".
I'd agree with that, it was more marginal than wrong per se.

But Stoke got away with obstruction on the keeper several times early in the season. Seems a bit perverse that they should get a 'benefit of the doubt' type decision.