What's new

Premier League 2016/17

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,216
I wonder if Jesus has those eyebrows trademarked. They could be his brand, like Bale's heart.
 

cliff jones

Well-Known Member
Aug 31, 2012
4,154
6,793
What was Sterling interfering with, exactly?

Schmeichels view wasn't obstructed by him, even though the officials couldn't tell from where they were stood.

Neither was he getting anywhere near the shot.

Only if Sterling touches the ball could there be an infringement, no matter what the pundits say...

Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

Good if that thug Huth and as well as Morgan are out for Thursday, we owe them one
 

Danners9

Available on a Free Transfer
Mar 30, 2004
14,018
20,807
What was Sterling interfering with, exactly?

Schmeichels view wasn't obstructed by him, even though the officials couldn't tell from where they were stood.

Neither was he getting anywhere near the shot.

Only if Sterling touches the ball could there be an infringement, no matter what the pundits say...

Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

Good if that thug Huth and as well as Morgan are out for Thursday, we owe them one
the simple answer is: 'play'

Being offside and going for the ball is interfering.
 

Bus-Conductor

SC Supporter
Oct 19, 2004
39,837
50,713
What was Sterling interfering with, exactly?

Schmeichels view wasn't obstructed by him, even though the officials couldn't tell from where they were stood.

Neither was he getting anywhere near the shot.

Only if Sterling touches the ball could there be an infringement, no matter what the pundits say...

Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

Good if that thug Huth and as well as Morgan are out for Thursday, we owe them one

He swings his leg at the ball, that immediately makes him an offside player attempting to play the ball. Whatever happens next is irrelevant.
 

tiger666

Large Member
Jan 4, 2005
27,978
82,216
What was Sterling interfering with, exactly?

Schmeichels view wasn't obstructed by him, even though the officials couldn't tell from where they were stood.

Neither was he getting anywhere near the shot.

Only if Sterling touches the ball could there be an infringement, no matter what the pundits say...

Benefit of the doubt to the attacking team.

Good if that thug Huth and as well as Morgan are out for Thursday, we owe them one

If you're that close to the goal going for the ball and in the keeper's sight, imo you're interfering.
 

luRRka

Well-Known Member
Jul 27, 2008
3,703
15,703
He swings his leg at the ball, that immediately makes him an offside player attempting to play the ball. Whatever happens next is irrelevant.
I think it was offside, however what you said is not correct.

The new “additional guidance” to referees says that a player should be considered offside if he “clearly attempts to play a ball, which is close to him when this action impacts on an opponent” or “makes an obvious action, which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball”.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/fo...s-down-on-interfering-with-play-loophole.html
 
Top