Match Thread Watford v Leicester

[homer]

Oh, Wasil.

Should have been two nil

 

[Lboro fox]

He was a yard offside when the ball was played across. The fact it hit a Watford player on the way is completely irrelevant.

Only if he is deemed to be effecting play or interfering with a player at the time. He is unfortunate that as no one was near him at the time and he wasn't blocking the sight of the goalie that he was deemed to be gaining advantage. Once it hits the defender he cannot be penalised under the offside rules.

 

[londonfox]

The commentator just mentioned 'Champions Cardiff'.
This pleased me.

When the commentator tomorrow mentions "victorious Swansea" you might not be so pleased.

 

[RHYDAL]

When the commentator tomorrow mentions "victorious Swansea" you might not be so pleased.

I won't hear it cos I'll be at the gaming slagging the players off as you do.

 

[homer]

Good first half, that. We looked excellent.

 

[Blue Maniac]

Only if he is deemed to be effecting play or interfering with a player at the time. He is unfortunate that as no one was near him at the time and he wasn't blocking the sight of the goalie that he was deemed to be gaining advantage. Once it hits the defender he cannot be penalised under the offside rules.

Woeful misunderstanding of what offside is. When the ball was played to him, he was in an offside position. A deflection off a defender has no importance at all.

 

[fitz]

Good first half, that. We looked excellent.

We've been good, could have and perhaps should have been more than 1 goal for us.

We're even getting some praise from Sky commentators, they're impressed that lowly second placed Leicester aren't getting ****ed over by high flying 7th placed Watford.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Who is on our bench today? I missed it.

 

[Blaarev]

We've been good, could have and perhaps should have been more than 1 goal for us.

We're even getting some praise from Sky commentators, they're impressed that lowly second placed Leicester aren't getting ****ed over by high flying 7th placed Watford.

At least we're not "big spending" Leicester anymore

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Only if he is deemed to be effecting play or interfering with a player at the time. He is unfortunate that as no one was near him at the time and he wasn't blocking the sight of the goalie that he was deemed to be gaining advantage. Once it hits the defender he cannot be penalised under the offside rules.

Actually it's also if the player is gaining an advantage and Wood was clearly gaining an advantage in where he was standing given it gave him 5 yards outside any defender in front of an essentially empty net.

 

[fitz]

At least we're not "big spending" Leicester anymore

Peter Beagrie now saying we're the better side. I'm obviously inhaling some fumes today, off to check the gas....

 

[Brown Nose]

Who is on our bench today? I missed it.

Logan, Miguel, Bakayogo, James, Hammond, Taylor-Fletcher, Hopper.

 

[Profondo Rosso]

Logan, Miguel, Bakayogo, James, Hammond, Taylor-Fletcher, Hopper.

Cheers!

 

[Lboro fox]

Actually it's also if the player is gaining an advantage and Wood was clearly gaining an advantage in where he was standing given it gave him 5 yards outside any defender in front of an essentially empty net.

I did check the laws of the game and the only way he could have been given offside was the above, for the split second between knockeart playing the ball and hitting the defender.

Had the ball gone straight in from knockeart shot, then should the goal have been disallowed?

 

[Blue Maniac]

Actually it's also if the player is gaining an advantage and Wood was clearly gaining an advantage in where he was standing given it gave him 5 yards outside any defender in front of an essentially empty net.

Advantage or no, he was the target of the pass. If he'd been standing in front of the opposite corner flag, there's no possible advantage to being there but he still would have been offside.

 

[homer]

I did check the laws of the game and the only way he could have been given offside was the above, for the split second between knockeart playing the ball and hitting the defender.

Yes, that's exactly when he was offside.

When the ball was played.

Offside.

Plain and simple.

That means he's not on side.

Clearly, and bleedin' obviously offside.

That's what he was

 

[Blue Maniac]

Yes, that's exactly when he was offside.

When the ball was played.

Offside.

Plain and simple.

That means he's not on side.

Clearly, and bleedin' obviously offside.

That's what he was

:icon_lol: Why do people try to complicate the simplest of concepts?

 

[Lboro fox]

Advantage or no, he was the target of the pass. If he'd been standing in front of the opposite corner flag, there's no possible advantage to being there but he still would have been offside.

It could have been a deflected shot. Had the ball gone in direct, then by your interpretation Woods postition would have meant the goal was disallowed for offside. Who the target of the pass is irrelevant, it is the position and the interaction of players (in the opinion of the ref) at the point of the ball being played that decides on whether it is offside.

 

[Lboro fox]

:icon_lol: Why do people try to complicate the simplest of concepts?

It is no longer a simple rule? Players are allowed to be in offside positions but not be commiting an offence?

 

[homer]

It is no longer a simple rule? Players are allowed to be in offside positions but not be commiting an offence?

Mate, he was offside

Seriously