Should Fowlers goal have counted

dbnavan

IMO opinion the ref got it right, cisse did not touch the ball therefore, goal!

p.pete

Yes but not because Cisse didn't interfere but because of the swings and roundabouts theory - Fowlers had a few disallowed, some of them right some of them wrong.

Shame for Blackburn though, they definitely have a case to feel disgruntled.

mike65

I would say no as Cisse did become at least partially active as he thought to help the ball on before withdrawing his leg.

I guess the moral is defenders should never wait for the whistle, strikers don't. That and change the law back please.

Mike.

NotWormBoy

He was interfering with play by appearing to be going for the ball, thus distracting the defenders and making them play the offside trap for all it was worth.

I won't complain, however, as Fowler has had one or two disallowed for dodgy offside decisions.

MrJoeSoap

I don't think it should have. By even trying to play the ball and stopping I would say he "interfered" with play.

Little-Devil

I don't think it should have stood, but good to see fowler score a goal (i'm a manu fan as well). The blackburn defence all stoped and put there hands up, which annoys me. I dont understand why they dont play until the whistle goes, they may have prevented the goal.......but who knows.

Kingp35

No it should not have been allowed. He was still moving forward into an attacking position and was not walking out. He also went to play the ball and just took his foot away at the last second. Now clearly the defenders thought he was going for the ball was gonna hit it and therefore he was qute obviously interfering with play. It shouldnt have stood.

I agree with mike65, the rule should be changed back to what it was because this new rule is a joke.

Necronomicon

No it shouldn't have, Cisse lifted his foot towards the ball and therefore was interfering. But as someone said above, Fowler has had 2 taken away from him, I'm not sure if both should have stood but one definately should have.

Guy:Incognito

Probably not, but after having 3 goals ruled out (at least 1 was definate goal) he deserved a bit of luck. He has 2 more dodgy goals before karma is evened out again.

Chardee MacDennis

well realistically did the assis ref see him lift his leg, i reckon not. since cisse was completely side on to him, it would be tough to see it.

Also really does depend on your interpretation of the law, does interfering with play mean actually touching the ball, or making the defenders have to worry about what your doing.

either way the goal stood but i wouldnt really have been to upset had it been ruled out.

PHB

For those who think it wasn't offside, if he had swung for the ball for a shot, but missed it completely (not unlikely with Cisse), and the play continued, would it have been a goal?

gimmick

mike65 wrote:

That and change the law back please.

Im never sad to see Fowler score, but that decision yesterday was appaling. The rule should either be changed back to 'if you are on the pitch, you are active', or just abolish it altogether.

Essentially, there is nothing stoipping a manager from leaving a striker hang around on the 18 yard line to distract the keeper and defenders in the current interpretation.

Utter crap.

gimmick

PHB wrote:

For those who think it wasn't offside, if he had swung for the ball for a shot, but missed it completely (not unlikely with Cisse), and the play continued, would it have been a goal?

The fact he made any sort of movement toward the ball made him 'active'.

andrewie

Can't believ it was given. He lifted his leg towards the ball becoming active. I think FIFA should get rid of this ridiclous rule.

Jivin Turkey

Probably shouldn't have stood. I think the linesman may not have given it because if he were in line with Cisse he would not have seen him stick out a leg, hence thought he was not interfering.

Swings and roundabouts really.

Great move though.

Rikand

shouldnt have stood...but thats the beautiful game for ya

jesus_thats_gre

Not seen the goal properly so can't comment on it really. However, if it was offside then no, it shouldn't have counted. However, it was given and nothing is going to change that.. The rule needs to be restored back to what it was or it needs to be refined considerably.

Cormic

I believe that Cisse was offside. I won't complain too loudly though

futuredeath

for me this whole active thing is gray area and to clear it up the only thing that can be done is to say either touching the ball makes you active or go back to the old way,

county

offside imo,but fifa need to look at this active-non active rule,imo if your on the field of play your active,simple as that!

midget lord

The rule is if any movement is made toward the ball then they player is deemed to have been involved in the play, so in that regard it should not have counted.

Still, it counted and a deserved win for the redmen. Poor old djibs needs to sharpen his finishing a little....

dirkey_wynne

I'd have given it. I know he went to play it, so you could say he was interfering, but realistically he wasn't. He didn't end up touching it, and wasn't blocking anyone. Defenders should play to the whistle. P!ssed me off though, I had the 0-0 backed.

redspider

It should have been offside. Cisse was clearly interfering with play due to his proximity to the ball, irregardless of whether he made contact or not. Its a pity that Liverpool didnt score another goal as this would have made this incident a smaller talking point. They had enough chancs to do so, Cisse needs to go back to U-12 coaching to learn how to shoot. There is more to football than power.

It was a good finish from Fowler which is one positive. However, Liverpool's well documented problems remain. 3rd is looking more or less assured now, and its unlikely that Man U will slip up to allow Liverpool to have a chance of 2nd. That means that all Liverpool have to play for is the FA Cup, so Saturday will be a good game.

redspider

Dcully

if,but,how,what,where,when The goal was given end of story.

dirkey_wynne

Dcully wrote:

if,but,how,what,where,when The goal was given end of story.

Raaaar. This cat's got claws.

Ardent

I don't know what the big deal is. The law apparently is that you are deemed inactive if you're not involved in the play. Cisse didn't touch the ball so was therefore not involved in play. It's just contentious coz it almost looks like he played the ball. Good spot by the linesman.

But I agree, this inactive thing needs to be scrapped, make the whole offside trap too much of a grey area.

midget lord

redspider wrote:

It should have been offside. Cisse was clearly interfering with play due to his proximity to the ball, irregardless of whether he made contact or not. Its a pity that Liverpool didnt score another goal as this would have made this incident a smaller talking point. They had enough chancs to do so, Cisse needs to go back to U-12 coaching to learn how to shoot. There is more to football than power.

It was a good finish from Fowler which is one positive. However, Liverpool's well documented problems remain. 3rd is looking more or less assured now, and its unlikely that Man U will slip up to allow Liverpool to have a chance of 2nd. That means that all Liverpool have to play for is the FA Cup, so Saturday will be a good game.

redspider

I disagree. We have a total of 82 points to play for which would represent our highest points total in the premiership. This would be a significant improvement from last season. FA cup would be great too, both would be terrific and would IMO represent a good season and one that we can certainly build on.

Fighting Irish

offside


you don't have to touch the ball to interfere with play

growler

I think that the amount of controversy surrounding the offside decisions this season and the comments from managers from so many teams means its ever more likley the FA will look at bringing some form of video refereeing in next season. If they limit it initially to offsides / goals its a good place to start.

TheMonster

growler wrote:

I think that the amount of controversy surrounding the offside decisions this season and the comments from managers from so many teams means its ever more likley the FA will look at bringing some form of video refereeing in next season. If they limit it initially to offsides / goals its a good place to start.

I thought FIFA said no way.

As regards the incident 100% offside

growler

I just had a look on the FIFA site www.fifa.com to see what they had to say on the matter , but got distracted by their "shot of the day" photo which showed Michael Essien running to the crowd to celebrate his goal ... which I thought wass kinda strange as even at the time I remember saying "oh sh1t, he'll get booked now for celebrating with the crowd" fortuntely Stiles didn't but there have been occassions this season when I have seen Chelsea players booked for the same thing! consistency eh :rolleyes:

Also learned that Frisk wass given FIFA's Presidential Award, which I thought was a little surprising given the controversial circumstances of his departure from the game.

On the offside thinking all I could find was
"Rule 11: offside interpreted
The former Scotland coach set the ball rolling to a healthy debate on the offside law and its interpretation with an eye-opening presentation and selection of video clips from recent Champions League and European matches. In each, a controversial goal had been scored and Roxburgh, with a somewhat mischievous grin, asked his fellow members to call goal or no goal. The room’s distinguished gentlemen stirred as the lights were lowered and the projection emitted.

Never allowing an opportunity to escape his sense of fun, Platini took up the role of the commentator of the soundless images, showing off his vast knowledge of the game by perfectly and passionately describing the action. The images fell largely into two categories: a player in an offside position interfering with the goalkeeper’s line of vision, and a player in a passive offside position (not interfering with play) only becoming active (able to rejoin the game) once the first pass had been completed.
Laws of the Game: more detailed interpretation of Law 11: Offside

The busiest man in the room, however, was FIFA’s technician, who was repeatedly called back to play the tape just “one more time”. Roxburgh had already proved how difficult a job referees had and, perhaps more importantly, how difficult understanding Rule 11 was for players and coaches before he summoned FIFA’s Head of Refereeing Jose Maria Garcia-Aranda to the front to give his verdict (largely agreeing with his colleague’s original decision) and to explain the sometimes misunderstood rule.

ollowing the presentation, members offered a number of suggestions to simplify the rule. Some called for all players to be viewed as active within the six-yard box, while others believed this should be extended to include the whole penalty box"

Which sounded like a nice day out for the lads, no doubt paid for by the world's football fans so they could sit on their arses and decide to do, errrr , nothing much really.

MrJoeSoap

growler wrote:

"oh sh1t, he'll get booked now for celebrating with the crowd" fortuntely Stiles didn't but there have been occassions this season when I have seen Chelsea players booked for the same thing! consistency eh :rolleyes:

Arjen Robben? . Gary Cahill was booked for it on Saturday morning.

Also, MOTD last night highlighted the similarities between Carsleys tackle on Drogba and Lucas Neill's on Cisse, one was deemed a yellow, the other a red.

thegills

The standard of refereeing has slipped dramatically and was evident in this game. In the 2nd half the officials were determined to make it up to Blackburn. They gave 3 offsides against Liverpool were the Liverpool player was clearly in his own half. In injury time they gave a free against Kewell for shielding the ball at the corner flag; Kewell actually had his foot on the ball when the free was given. And 5 minutes injury time; they were 'avin a larf..
thegills

Fighting Irish

i see 21 liverpool supporters voted

redspider

midget lord wrote:

I disagree. We have a total of 82 points to play for which would represent our highest points total in the premiership. This would be a significant improvement from last season. FA cup would be great too, both would be terrific and would IMO represent a good season and one that we can certainly build on.

I would trade 3 losses in the league for 2 wins in the remaining FA Cup games. The points tally is not important, espcially when Sunderland are giving nearly everyone 6 pts (except Man U !). The "Sunderland" effect reduces our total to 76. I think our 2nd placing finish a couple of years ago would eclipse a better points total.

I think everyone at the club is concentrating on that FA Cup win, Rafa included.

redspider

Rikand

Fighting Irish wrote:

i see 21 liverpool supporters voted

more than 21...i think a few of them actually agree with the rest of us too [face_tongue]

Lemlin

Dsigraceful decision and the second duff decision Blackburn have had against 'Pool this season (Khizanishvili's sending off that was overturned two days later being the first).

Thanx 4 The Fish

Yes it was a disgraceful decision, blackburn were lucky to finish the game with eleven on the pitch this game too mind. Are you related to mourinho by any chance ?

Lemlin

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

Yes it was a disgraceful decision, blackburn were lucky to finish the game with eleven on the pitch this game too mind. Are you related to mourinho by any chance ?

If you're referring to the Lucas Neill challenge, it didn't look like more than a yellow card to me. Would you disagree?

As a referee, I'd also expect you to know that the goal shouldn't of been allowed, even if it did result in three points for Liverpool. As I said in the post I had deleted, I may be a Blackburn supporter but even I can see that MGP's goal against Newcastle shouldn't of stood.

Thanx 4 The Fish

Lemlin wrote:

If you're referring to the Lucas Neill challenge, it didn't look like more than a yellow card to me. Would you disagree?

As a referee, I'd also expect you to know that the goal shouldn't of been allowed, even if it did result in three points for Liverpool. As I said in the post I had deleted, I may be a Blackburn supporter but even I can see that MGP's goal against Newcastle shouldn't of stood.

As a ref I would have to say that once any rule is open to interpretation it is wrong. It was the linesmans interpretation of the ruling that meant that Cisse was not interfering and while I would have given him off in that position because I think anybody in the box in interfering really, he obviously did not think that, The fact that the goal stood also goes to show that the ref had a different interpretation to alot of people. If it is balck and white then it is okay but once they say interfering with play then unfirtunately this cannot be legislated for. I would say that If Henry was offside when a fee wastaken and somebody else stuck it in then he was interfering despite him not touching the ball and yet that is never given and people do not complain about that. RVN is a master of it, standing a few yards offside, putting off the keeper and then united get a goal. Thsi is not seen as interfering by many bout I think once you are in teh box you will be interfering, the reason I think that the goal should have stood is that both teams had the same ref and while liverpool were lucky to get that goal, blackburn were also lucky to keep eleven men on the pitch, The refs interpretation of offences is all that it will come down to and unless there is ever a clear cut rule, which does not mention intent or the like then there cannot be decent refereeing, because while the ref is always going to get the balem, particularly by any losing team, the rules are what the ref upholds and unless they are watertight, his decisions cannot be questioned in isolation.

Ardent

Lemlin wrote:

If you're referring to the Lucas Neill challenge, it didn't look like more than a yellow card to me. Would you disagree?

Lee Carsley got a straight red for an identical challenge on Drogba the following day.

Lemlin

Ardent wrote:

Lee Carsley got a straight red for an identical challenge on Drogba the following day.

Yes, and did you not hear many say that it was very harsh. They even picked it out on MOTD.

Originally posted by Thanx 4 The Fish
As a ref I would have to say that once any rule is open to interpretation it is wrong. It was the linesmans interpretation of the ruling that meant that Cisse was not interfering and while I would have given him off in that position because I think anybody in the box in interfering really, he obviously did not think that, The fact that the goal stood also goes to show that the ref had a different interpretation to alot of people. If it is balck and white then it is okay but once they say interfering with play then unfirtunately this cannot be legislated for. I would say that If Henry was offside when a fee wastaken and somebody else stuck it in then he was interfering despite him not touching the ball and yet that is never given and people do not complain about that. RVN is a master of it, standing a few yards offside, putting off the keeper and then united get a goal. Thsi is not seen as interfering by many bout I think once you are in teh box you will be interfering, the reason I think that the goal should have stood is that both teams had the same ref and while liverpool were lucky to get that goal, blackburn were also lucky to keep eleven men on the pitch, The refs interpretation of offences is all that it will come down to and unless there is ever a clear cut rule, which does not mention intent or the like then there cannot be decent refereeing, because while the ref is always going to get the balem, particularly by any losing team, the rules are what the ref upholds and unless they are watertight, his decisions cannot be questioned in isolation.

Neill's challenge was an example they picked out on MOTD of where the referee got things right. I suppose you don't agree with Alan Hansen and the BBC crew though?

Perhaps the referee also wanted to make up for the fact that Blackburn wrongfully had to play with ten men earlier in the year. Perhaps you think Khizanishvili's sending off was right too but the FA didn't agree with you sadly.

Let me ask you one thing: If that was at the other end and Craig Bellamy knocked that ball in, would you not feel aggrieved?

Mitch Connor

it was offside, clearly. The Rovers defence pushed up to play cisse offside, cisse motioned to play the ball, the ball was within a foot of him. to claim that it is not offside is ridiculas. and i blame FIFA for all the crap changes to the rule so no one understands the damn thing anymore.

MrJoeSoap

Everyone understands the rule, its just that the ref and linesman got it terribly wrong.

Lemlin

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Everyone understands the rule, its just that the ref and linesman got it terribly wrong.

Exactly and how anyone could say otherwise or try to justify the decision is beyond me.

MrJoeSoap

Lemlin wrote:

Exactly and how anyone could say otherwise or try to justify the decision is beyond me.

You're always likely to get a couple of people voting for it, but 24 is a ridiculous number alright.

~Rebel~

Lemlin wrote:

Let me ask you one thing: If that was at the other end and Craig Bellamy knocked that ball in, would you not feel aggrieved?

Thanx 4 The Fish wrote:

I would have given him off in that position because I think anybody in the box in interfering really

Think he pretty much answered your question before you asked it..

Personally i think it was a tough call from where the linesman was, would have been hard to see cisse raise his leg from the way he was turned. had he been next to cisse im fairly sure he'd have called offside. Delighted we got the call but have no problem admitting the call was pretty much totally wrong, especially given that the pass from fowler was probably intended for him.

Lemlin

MrJoeSoap wrote:

You're always likely to get a couple of people voting for it, but 24 is a ridiculous number alright.

I could say what it points to on this forum but I'll be lambasted again...;)

~Rebel~ wrote:

Personally i think it was a tough call from where the linesman was, would have been hard to see cisse raise his leg from the way he was turned. had he been next to cisse im fairly sure he'd have called offside. Delighted we got the call but have no problem admitting the call was pretty much totally wrong, especially given that the pass from fowler was probably intended for him.

Even if the linesman hadn't seen him raise his leg, Cisse was too close to the play to be deemed not interfering. For god's sake, the ball ran directly past him. To be not intefering with play IMO, you have to be at least a metre or so away from the ball.

Thenx 4 The Fish wrote:

Are you related to mourinho by any chance ?

I realise I'm doing very well in the Boards Fantasy Football leagues but I wouldn't start claiming that I'm related to the best manager in England just yet...

Ardent

Lemlin wrote:

Yes, and did you not hear many say that it was very harsh. They even picked it out on MOTD.

I watched MOTD too, I must have missed the bit where they said the Carsley red card was harsh. I do remember them saying the challenge was a potential leg breaker though (same goes for the Lucas Neill one IMO). Going in two footed like that and taking the player's standing leg long after the ball is gone is a red card affair in my book.

Lemlin

Ardent wrote:

I watched MOTD too, I must have missed the bit where they said the Carsley red card was harsh. I do remember them saying the challenge was a potential leg breaker though (same goes for the Lucas Neill one IMO). Going in two footed like that and taking the player's standing leg long after the ball is gone is a red card affair in my book.

Maybe you watched it Sunday night. I didn't see it then. On Monday, Hansen picked it out as a yellow card offence, nothing more. He also said they had been harsh on Carsley and both challenges were similar. That doesn't make it right in any way but I still don't think it warranted a red card.

By the way, the subject here is still the goal and should it have stood. It doesn't matter if:

A) Fowler has had goals correctly disallowed in the past against other teams
Lucas Neill was sent off or not

Either way, the goal should NOT of been allowed and that is the question asked.

Take it

It was offside yes, but saying that its a disgrace is harsh, would the same people who said it was a disgrace say the say about the other "offsides" in the game that probably would have lead to at least another goal when the play was in his own half? That decision to me is just as bad as it’s a bread and butter rule with no complications for them to get it wrong.