Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Viewing the replay again on the disallowed goal shows the Arab clearly running behind Weir before the ball gets kicked. EXACTLY, so why the fuck do shitanta keep going on about it, he was offside regardless of him not touching the ball He wasn't offside because he wasn't interfering with play. The man who kicked the ball, kicked it off weir. So the DU player wasn't interfering with play. We were lucky to get away with it How can he not be interferring with play if he's in front of our keeper and and big Davie has reacted to the abll the way he did due to one of their players being behind him in an OFFSIDE position. Of course he was interferring with play.. He wasn't in front of our keeper. He was outside the 18 yeard box FFS. It hit one of our players and went in the net. We'll just have to agree to disagree if you can't see that Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Viewing the replay again on the disallowed goal shows the Arab clearly running behind Weir before the ball gets kicked. EXACTLY, so why the fuck do shitanta keep going on about it, he was offside regardless of him not touching the ball He wasn't offside because he wasn't interfering with play. The man who kicked the ball, kicked it off weir. So the DU player wasn't interfering with play. We were lucky to get away with it DU player doesnt need to touch the ball to be interfering with play He was outside the 18 yard box. He wasn't even near to getting the ball, therefore he wasn't interfering with play. he wasnt near to getting the ball? Im pretty sure you talking your arse. He cut his run to intercept the ball while in an offside position, as soon as he done that he's offside as he involves himself in the play. Thankfully the linesman agrees with me and not you What does talking my arse mean???? The ball was played behnd him. Granted it was probably not meant to do that, but it was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Viewing the replay again on the disallowed goal shows the Arab clearly running behind Weir before the ball gets kicked. EXACTLY, so why the fuck do shitanta keep going on about it, he was offside regardless of him not touching the ball He wasn't offside because he wasn't interfering with play. The man who kicked the ball, kicked it off weir. So the DU player wasn't interfering with play. We were lucky to get away with it How can he not be interferring with play if he's in front of our keeper and and big Davie has reacted to the abll the way he did due to one of their players being behind him in an OFFSIDE position. Of course he was interferring with play.. He wasn't in front of our keeper. He was outside the 18 yeard box FFS. It hit one of our players and went in the net. We'll just have to agree to disagree if you can't see that We certainly will until you learn the offside rule and what is and what's not interferring with play. :harhar: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemeanie6 3 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 what about the offside which was given to Novo 5 mins from regular time, he was WELL onside and probably could have scored Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Viewing the replay again on the disallowed goal shows the Arab clearly running behind Weir before the ball gets kicked. EXACTLY, so why the fuck do shitanta keep going on about it, he was offside regardless of him not touching the ball He wasn't offside because he wasn't interfering with play. The man who kicked the ball, kicked it off weir. So the DU player wasn't interfering with play. We were lucky to get away with it How can he not be interferring with play if he's in front of our keeper and and big Davie has reacted to the abll the way he did due to one of their players being behind him in an OFFSIDE position. Of course he was interferring with play.. He wasn't in front of our keeper. He was outside the 18 yeard box FFS. It hit one of our players and went in the net. We'll just have to agree to disagree if you can't see that We certainly will until you learn the offside rule and what is and what's not interferring with play. :harhar: I think you need to learn it mate. The man who kicked the ball was obviously very onside. The ball he kicked went in off one of our players. The DU player never touched it and never looked like touching it. Under the rules of offside these days, that makes him not interfering with play and not offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandangoman 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 he wasnt intefering with play. 18 yards out, not infront of the keeper an he was a good distance away from davie weir, weir stuck his leg out through pure reaction and it went into the net. the DU player was no where near play, an from the replay, alexander was on the left hand side of his goal, the dundee utd player was going towards the right hand side, if anything weir was blocking alexander. the goal should have stood but thank fuck it didnt coz DU were getting back into the game to quick for my liking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craigy 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Novo wearing a scarf getting interviewed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
McBoyd 355 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Novo wearing a scarf getting interviewed NOVO NOVO NOVO! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PortGlasgow 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Hugh Keevins will start off his drivel by saying the league has balanced out, complete bullshit the amount of decisions gone against us this season are unreal. One 50/50 penalty decision and a correct offside decision doesn't balance out anything, but it is ATLEAST a step in the right direction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 what about the offside which was given to Novo 5 mins from regular time, he was WELL onside and probably could have scored Absolutely agree. Novo was well onside. But we won. Let's enjoy and support Hibs tomorrow Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Jesus what part of interferring with play are you struggling with? It's clear the player that kicked it was onside. Noone is disputing that. It's also clear that it came off Weirsway. Noone is disputing that.But it's also clear that a DU player was in behind Weir in an OFFSIDE position irrelevant if it hit him or not. Alexanders view may have been effected by this DU player in this OFFSIDE position. Weirs reaction to the ball been kicked towards him may have been effected by this DU player in the OFFSIDE position..This is like pulling teeth.. lmao. :idiot: :idiot: :idiot: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 he wasnt intefering with play. 18 yards out, not infront of the keeper an he was a good distance away from davie weir, weir stuck his leg out through pure reaction and it went into the net. the DU player was no where near play, an from the replay, alexander was on the left hand side of his goal, the dundee utd player was going towards the right hand side, if anything weir was blocking alexander. the goal should have stood but thank fuck it didnt coz DU were getting back into the game to quick for my liking. Really doesn't matter how far out he is. When the ball is struck the DU player is directly behind Weir and in direct line of Alexander. I can't believe I'm arguing about this with fucking GERS fans. :angry2: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Jesus what part of interferring with play are you struggling with? It's clear the player that kicked it was onside. Noone is disputing that. It's also clear that it came off Weirsway. Noone is disputing that.But it's also clear that a DU player was in behind Weir in an OFFSIDE position irrelevant if it hit him or not. Alexanders view may have been effected by this DU player in this OFFSIDE position. Weirs reaction to the ball been kicked towards him may have been effected by this DU player in the OFFSIDE position..This is like pulling teeth.. lmao. :idiot: :idiot: :idiot: Alexander was on the other side of the goal. Where was he being inpeded. You are right about one thing though. It is like pulling teeth. It doesn't matter where the DU player was there because there was NO attempt made to get the ball by him. Alexander was way over on the left with the DU player on the right. So where you get impeding from is simply beyond me. Why not come out with the old classic, if he's on the pitch he's interfering. try that one next lmao Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 he wasnt intefering with play. 18 yards out, not infront of the keeper an he was a good distance away from davie weir, weir stuck his leg out through pure reaction and it went into the net. the DU player was no where near play, an from the replay, alexander was on the left hand side of his goal, the dundee utd player was going towards the right hand side, if anything weir was blocking alexander. the goal should have stood but thank fuck it didnt coz DU were getting back into the game to quick for my liking. Really doesn't matter how far out he is. When the ball is struck the DU player is directly behind Weir and in direct line of Alexander. I can't believe I'm arguing about this with fucking GERS fans. :angry2: He wasn't in direct line. Are you suggesting we should all just agree that it was offside because we support Rangers??? I like to be more honest in my assumptions Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni 2 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 He looks like he's going to hit someone... heh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 :no: ... I give up Steely.. WATP nonetheless. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluemeanie6 3 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 what about the offside which was given to Novo 5 mins from regular time, he was WELL onside and probably could have scored Absolutely agree. Novo was well onside. But we won. Let's enjoy and support Hibs tomorrow oh yes Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris013 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 John Hartson on shitanta whinging about the ref and the decisions, tim b**tard!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I'd just like to add that the term interferring with play does not purely mean making an attempt to play/pass or shoot. Interferring with play is also deemed as being in site of the keeper at any point and perhaps blocking his view from an offside position.. If you watch the replay again slowed down you will see that as the ball is struck, the DU player is 100% in line with Weir AND Alexander therefore DEFINITELY interferring with play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I'd also like to add that I don't know how to spell interferring as it is infact interfering. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris013 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I'd just like to add that the term interferring with play does not purely mean making an attempt to play/pass or shoot. Interferring with play is also deemed as being in site of the keeper at any point and perhaps blocking his view from an offside position.. If you watch the replay again slowed down you will see that as the ball is struck, the DU player is 100% in line with Weir AND Alexander therefore DEFINITELY interferring with play. You know what, who cares, the ref and linesman conferred and the ref disallowed the goal, end of conversation, the players should be proffessional enough to get on with the game. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fandangoman 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 fair do`s im giving u my judgement as to when i seen it, and the 1 replay i seen, so to Ted e bayer, calm doon big man, go get a can of stella and relax...we won, thats all that matters Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I'd just like to add that the term interferring with play does not purely mean making an attempt to play/pass or shoot. Interferring with play is also deemed as being in site of the keeper at any point and perhaps blocking his view from an offside position.. If you watch the replay again slowed down you will see that as the ball is struck, the DU player is 100% in line with Weir AND Alexander therefore DEFINITELY interferring with play. You know what, who cares, the ref and linesman conferred and the ref disallowed the goal, end of conversation, the players should be proffessional enough to get on with the game. True, the quad is on! wooohooo!! :bouncy: :bouncy: :bouncy: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely 60 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I'd just like to add that the term interferring with play does not purely mean making an attempt to play/pass or shoot. Interferring with play is also deemed as being in site of the keeper at any point and perhaps blocking his view from an offside position.. If you watch the replay again slowed down you will see that as the ball is struck, the DU player is 100% in line with Weir AND Alexander therefore DEFINITELY interferring with play. Mate the keeper is on his line. Therefore arguement can be made that the whole DU team were in front of him. Of course that is very petty and completely ridiculous. The FACT is the DU player was on the right hand side outside the 18 yard box. Alexander was on the left hand side on his goal line. The shot came from just to the right hand side of the middle going left, until it hit Weir and changed direction. So the DU player was onside. Had it hit the DU player and gone right then yes, he is offside. But under todays rules you are only offside if you are seen as interfering with play and in an offside position. Remeber the goal against us in Champions league. Plater was in the six yard box and a shot came in. He wasn't seen as interfering with play and the goal stood. That's the rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 496 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I'd just like to add that the term interferring with play does not purely mean making an attempt to play/pass or shoot. Interferring with play is also deemed as being in site of the keeper at any point and perhaps blocking his view from an offside position.. If you watch the replay again slowed down you will see that as the ball is struck, the DU player is 100% in line with Weir AND Alexander therefore DEFINITELY interferring with play. Mate the keeper is on his line. Therefore arguement can be made that the whole DU team were in front of him. Of course that is very petty and completely ridiculous. The FACT is the DU player was on the right hand side outside the 18 yard box. Alexander was on the left hand side on his goal line. The shot came from just to the right hand side of the middle going left, until it hit Weir and changed direction. So the DU player was onside. Had it hit the DU player and gone right then yes, he is offside. But under todays rules you are only offside if you are seen as interfering with play and in an offside position. Remeber the goal against us in Champions league. Plater was in the six yard box and a shot came in. He wasn't seen as interfering with play and the goal stood. That's the rules. My only arguement here is that Alexanders view may have been hindered therefore Dundee Utd gained an unfair advantage. Maybe I'm wrong but I still feel, having watched the replay numerous times, that that is the case. He hindered Alexanders view without a shadow of a doubt. We're still on for the Quad mate and I'll still share a tear with you in Manchester. :unionflag: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts