Manchester City Forum - Rags are allowed to be offside - it's official
Vital Football

Latest Manchester City News

Welcome to the Man City Fans Forum

Vital Football on FacebookVital Football on TwitterVital Football via RSS Feed
Not logged in.
( Login | register | forgotten password )
Random quote: Been there done that. Then, been there several more times, because apparently I never learn.
- (Added by: Tudor)
Current Poll (see more polls)
How many goals, if any will City score against Wigan Athletic?
Suggested By: Tudor
Five or more18%
Four50%
Three16%
Two0%
One0%
City won't score16%
The Vital Football Members League
Vital Members League Table
RankNamePoints
1.Johnny Baguette230
2.Buzz Lightyear220
3.Skoorb175
4.OziMan157
5.Colin Is The King143
6.Rising139
7.kennyclementstache113
8.Tudor104
9.johnkelv86
10.Bluedub63
Vital Football Comment
Breaking League News
Jump to forum:
Rags are allowed to be offside - it's official
23 February 2016 07:17 Post ID: #567020
50005000500020002000
Unbelievable!

My flabber is well and truly gasted.

I hadn't seen this before but I am at a loss to understand just how this goal was a) allowed to stand and b) that the referee agreed that it was ok BEFORE the game and BEFORE he witnessed the circumstances.

FA Cup: Shrewsbury v Man Utd: Should Mata's free-kick have stood?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35636778

W T F ?

Surely his response ought to have been "well we will see what happens and where the players stand if such an opportunity occurs but I cannot pre-judge whether they would be considered as offside BEFORE the match starts"...or at least before the free kick is taken.

Instead it appears that the rags checked with the referee, he gave them the all clear and once he's done that then he is never going to disallow the goal.

How can they not be considered as offside when they are in between the keeper and the ball?

Oh and note how there appears to be zero mention of this from the commentator (although the clip is short it is so obvious that for it not to get any mention as soon as the replays is shown is weird).

FFS

We all feel that the rags have had more than their share of favourable decisions over the to years but this takes to cake.

:doh!: :doh!: :doh!:
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
23 February 2016 07:42 Post ID: #567023 - in reply to #567020
Chief Forum Editor
50005000500050005000500050001002525
How they can allow that when it was clearly interfering with play is negligent and effectively took the fight out of Shrewsbury, esp the ref and linesmen are pro rag. the bbc should be the manubc.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
24 February 2016 17:22 Post ID: #567109 - in reply to #567020
500050001000
Where does it say that the referee agreed that it was ok before the game?
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
24 February 2016 18:39 Post ID: #567117 - in reply to #567109
Chief Forum Editor
50005000500050005000500050001002525
well they would not actually say out loud, the agreement would have been in the brown envelope.
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
27 February 2016 10:44 Post ID: #567636 - in reply to #567020
50005000500020002000
I have been astounded by the complete and utter absence of ANY comment or discussion on this goal.

Utterly astonishing that it hasn't been deemed 'controversial'
Like post
Like this post
0
Top of the page Bottom of the page
Pages (1):
1
Jump to forum:
Manchester City Fixtures  >>