RedUn Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Having just seen Van Nistelpistel's goal against Southampton and the ensuing debate on The Premiership, can someone now solve the (to me) outstanding mystery of why Lee Miller's effort against Chesterfield was disallowed? Or have the laws of the game changed (again) in the last week? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
edson Posted January 31, 2004 Share Posted January 31, 2004 Having just seen Van Nistelpistel's goal against Southampton and the ensuing debate on The Premiership, can someone now solve the (to me) outstanding mystery of why Lee Miller's effort against Chesterfield was disallowed? Or have the laws of the game changed (again) in the last week? I think Miller's effort was disallowed because the linesman was a blind t##t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted January 31, 2004 Author Share Posted January 31, 2004 I think Miller's effort was disallowed because the linesman was a blind tw##. I should think you're kicking the cow between the ears there Edson old boy (as we say in the country) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rollason Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 did windy head it straight in from cross?or was it like vanman-in the next"phase" of play after the original offside? anyway,he wos never offside from where i wos!!!!! (left of goal 100yrds away) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WestburyRed Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 Having just seen Van Nistelpistel's goal against Southampton and the ensuing debate on The Premiership I still insist the guy is interfering with play when he plonks himself yards offside for half the match, defenders have to adjust their game to deal with it and therefore I think he should be deemed offside when he does this. Others may disagree I'm sure (I thought it was quite clever for about five minutes) but I'm not a fan of it, especially as it then becomes virtually impossible for a linesman to judge if he is offside or not when the ball is finally played to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballwinningcentrehalf Posted February 1, 2004 Share Posted February 1, 2004 I believe that RvN was 100% offside and interferring with play, usually he steps back onside at the last second to confuse the defence but how can someone be in the penalty area for an attacking free-kick and be deemed not to be offside when the ball is played into the area and he is standing at least a yard further than the last man? i suppose its a good rule for Peacock though, he wont even need to bother getting onside for these free-kicks now.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.