Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
SEE GUDMUNDSSON'S GOAL AGAINST FULHAM HERE!
plentyofshots
Posts: 268
Decent ball in from Fox.
7
Comments
-
Appreciated as always POS, great that you go to the effort of posting these every week4
-
It wasn't offside? Great cross, but lucky we got that goal.plentyofshots said:
Decent ball in from Fox.1 -
Bulot was almost certainly in an offside position, but as he didn't touch the ball presumably not active. No idea about Gud, though I was waiting for the flag...0
-
He DOES do tap ins then... I was beginning to wonder. Definite hint of offside about it but after Friday I like to think that's karma.1
-
That was not an easy finish on his right foot, yet he missed an absolute sitter on his left.0
-
Bit more than a tap in! He had to stretch to get there and did well.thenewbie said:He DOES do tap ins then... I was beginning to wonder. Definite hint of offside about it but after Friday I like to think that's karma.
As for the offside yes I'm inclined to think we got lucky!0 -
A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
I can only assume that, given the amount of space he is in, the ref decided Bulot was not interfering with any opponent and, given that he didn't touch the ball, wasn't gaining any advantage or interfering with play.
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position
Definitely falls into the "I've seen 'em given" category.1 -
I can only assume that, given the amount of space he is in, the ref decided Bulot was not interfering with any opponent and, given that he didn't touch the ball, wasn't gaining any advantage or interfering with play.Rizzo said:A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position
Definitely falls into the "I've seen 'em given" category.
As a famous manager once said "if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch "
And the keeper goes to block the shot he never makes.1 -
He didn't 'interfere with play' as he didn't touch the ball. Open and shut case.
However, there is a strong argument to suggest that he 'interfered with an opponent', the definition of which includes "making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent".
Whether or not he tried to play the ball, or deliberately missed, the keeper clearly positions himself for the shot, leaving the rest of the goal wide open for JBG to tap in.
I think we were slightly fortunate.2 -
eh?Jodaius said:He didn't 'interfere with play' as he didn't touch the ball. Open and shut case.
The whole point of the 'interfering with play' rule is for circumstances when a player does not touch the ball. If he had touched it, it would have been straight offside.
In my opinion, Bulot was offside; he clearly moved towards the ball and tried to score. The keeper had to be wary of him and probably moved further away from Johann in response.
We got lucky
3 -
Sponsored links:
-
Wrong - the FIFA definition of interfering with play is "playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team-mate".cafcnick1992 said:
eh?Jodaius said:He didn't 'interfere with play' as he didn't touch the ball. Open and shut case.
The whole point of the 'interfering with play' rule is for circumstances when a player does not touch the ball. If he had touched it, it would have been straight offside.
In my opinion, Bulot was offside; he clearly moved towards the ball and tried to score. The keeper had to be wary of him and probably moved further away from Johann in response.
We got lucky
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afdeveloping/refereeing/law_11_offside_en_47383.pdf0 -
Surely the first question is were they standing in an offside position when the ball was played or did they just migrate there in time to "interfere"/score. The footage above doesn't answer that.2
-
That'a a fantastic cross from Fox. Absolute bastard to clear and the attacker just has to make contact. That's two very good assists in two for him3
-
I would say so, he literally just had to turn it in (despite not managing to replicate the feat later on but no-one's perfect.) I must admit to not realising how much ground he'd made up there, lung busting runs are not what I associate with Mr B. Gud, but he did well to get there.Stig said:
Does it count as a tap in if you have to run at it like a steam train to reach?thenewbie said:He DOES do tap ins then... I was beginning to wonder. Definite hint of offside about it but after Friday I like to think that's karma.
0 -
There's no such thing as 'straight offside'. In order for there to be an offence the player must a) be in an offside position and b) be involved in active play in one of the three ways I quoted earlier. Touching the ball comes under 'interfering with play'.cafcnick1992 said:
eh?Jodaius said:He didn't 'interfere with play' as he didn't touch the ball. Open and shut case.
The whole point of the 'interfering with play' rule is for circumstances when a player does not touch the ball. If he had touched it, it would have been straight offside.
0 -
I'll ask the little girl. She understands the offside rule better than her old man I think!0
-
can't we just enjoy the goal instead of arguing about whether Bulot and/or JBG were offside or not?
lino clearly a homer etc1 -
Looking at the moment when JBG becomes visible in the clip, he is already running so I reckon it's safe to assume he was onside when the pass was made. Also, despite what their manager said, I don't see their keeper making any move to save the 'effort' by Bulot. The keeper would have been in the same position whether Bulot was onside or not, and as Bulot doesn't touch the ball then it's a good goal. I agree with Garrymanilow, it is a killer cross by Fox and we should give full credit to the lad.0
-
If that's scored against us there would be uproar and we would all be claiming offside , but we had luck on our side .2
-
Sponsored links:
-
Couldn't believe the ref didn't give offside. Stayed in my seat pitying all the wankers around me who were about to be silenced in the midst of their celebrations.0
-
As a famous manager once said "if he's not interfering with play he shouldn't be on the pitch "PL54 said:
I can only assume that, given the amount of space he is in, the ref decided Bulot was not interfering with any opponent and, given that he didn't touch the ball, wasn't gaining any advantage or interfering with play.Rizzo said:A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:
interfering with play or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position
Definitely falls into the "I've seen 'em given" category.
And the keeper goes to block the shot he never makes.
They have changed the laws since then though.
And cases like this make me think the law is wrong. I thought it was altered so that a player lying injured by the corner flag couldn't be considered offside, not so that players right in the keeper's line of sight could dodge the ball/miss it completely while clearly making a move towards it and drawing the keeper's/defenders attention towards them?
Still - who cares when it's us getting lucky...
1 -
Fox played another great pass in the second half and another late in the game that was intercepted and got muted groan- but I thought his vision to see it was exceptional and it would have put us in. He didn’t have a lot of time and had the vision to see it and it nearly come off.3
-
Apparently they were offside up the other end but missed the chance instead of scoring it.
Swings and roundabouts.1 -
Fox seems to have been practising his crossing and his allround game is improving all the time.MuttleyCAFC said:Fox played another great pass in the second half and another late in the game that was intercepted and got muted groan- but I thought his vision to see it was exceptional and it would have put us in. He didn’t have a lot of time and had the vision to see it and it nearly come off.
I couldn't understand why he was getting pelters when he had been thrown in the deep end to cover for Wiggins and is still learning.
I don't think he is going to set the world alight, but I am more then happy for him to keep his place now.
Wiggins hasn't been the same player since that long injury he sustained from being torn a new one by Zaha and Bollasie
2 -
Yeah, the physical injury on top of being given a proper run around all in one game probably played on his mind. Never been quite the same, not to mention for a player who was pretty quick a bad metatarsal injury is much more of a hindrance than to one whose more about positioning and anticipation (not that Wiggins was bad at that in fairness.)0
-
Good to see the winger on the opposite side getting in at the far post to meet a cross. JoBerg must be getting close to top scorer now seeing as Igor's goals have dried up a bit since the early season hot streak?0
-
Great to see positive comments on Morgan Fox.MuttleyCAFC said:Fox played another great pass in the second half and another late in the game that was intercepted and got muted groan- but I thought his vision to see it was exceptional and it would have put us in. He didn’t have a lot of time and had the vision to see it and it nearly come off.
The lad improves in every game and is learning fast, had a good game last night against a quality strike force.
I was thinking after the Millwall game. Could you imagine if Morgan had got sent off and not Chris Solly?
It would have been a stupid first booking and deliberate hand ball, and it would never have been forgotten..1 -
No doubt ........ but IMO the team is now set up to enable Fox to get into forward positions.Six-a-bag-of-nuts said:
Fox seems to have been practising his crossing and his allround game is improving all the time.
There also seems a strategy for Fox to cross low into the box - as recently we've seen him create several chances, 2 of which have been scored from in successive games.
I believe we have to blame Luxon and his more attacking tactics.
And perhaps also Roger Johnson, for talking Fox through when to stay and when to go.
0
