californiadreamin52 339 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 What is it with the media why let the rule of the game stand in the way of a good story before they shout there necks of study the off side rule please Commiting an Offside Offence 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 interfering with an opponent gaining an advantage by being in that position This player was offside when ball was kicked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
J_RFC87 762 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 yup, and since he was running across Weir possible put him off, thus interfering with play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,288 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Of course he was interfering with play … he was between Weir and our goal when the ball was kicked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Right_To_Censor 1,951 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 it was never off side Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbm26896 995 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 it looked a perfectly good goal to me Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rohan 25 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 I can understand DU being annoyed, but I can also understand that the ref did see him running just behind Weir. Who cares, we won Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 69 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 i dont think he was put off. he was always gonna try and get in the way of the shot i was thinking if the guy wasnt there then weir would have let it run through, but he wouldnt have. he would have tried to block it. i thought it should of stood Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza 21 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 If it had been against us I'd have been well pissed!! Old Davie was just getting a Birthday Present from the Ref. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 i dont think he was put off. he was always gonna try and get in the way of the shot i was thinking if the guy wasnt there then weir would have let it run through, but he wouldnt have. he would have tried to block it. i thought it should of stood Commiting an Offside Offence 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 interfering with an opponent gaining an advantage by being in that position In your own words "if the guy wasnt there" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza 21 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 It wasn't offside for me either. He wasn't interfering with Weir imo as he was running behind him and Weir was only trying to block the shot, not worry about where the United man was. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 506 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Some people just don't understand californiadreamin52. It's was 100% offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 69 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 i dont think he was put off. he was always gonna try and get in the way of the shot i was thinking if the guy wasnt there then weir would have let it run through, but he wouldnt have. he would have tried to block it. i thought it should of stood Commiting an Offside Offence 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 interfering with an opponent gaining an advantage by being in that position which one of those offences did he commit? weir didnt even know he was there. and he didnt touch it. listenin to the levein interview hes ragin . says they were ' Cheated ' out of the cup final aswell. haha . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 506 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 i dont think he was put off. he was always gonna try and get in the way of the shot i was thinking if the guy wasnt there then weir would have let it run through, but he wouldnt have. he would have tried to block it. i thought it should of stood Commiting an Offside Offence 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 interfering with an opponent gaining an advantage by being in that position In your own words "if the guy wasnt there" The offside player gained an advantage by interfering with Alexanders view of the ball therefore broke the rule gaining an advantage by being in that position. Some people just don't understand californiadreamin52. It's was 100% offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
iaind 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 The tims don't mind winning with the refs help, why should we now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poetry_In_Blue 1,043 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 The goal wasn't offside, but that is the marvel of having the option of a replay, I got the impression that the linesman put his flag up because he thought the ball came of the United player last, and if it had then he would have been offside. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 It wasn't offside for me either. He wasn't interfering with Weir imo as he was running behind him and Weir was only trying to block the shot, not worry about where the United man was. If he`s behind Weir how is he not interfering with play why does not Weir let the ball run thought to the goalie Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 69 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 The goal wasn't offside, but that is the marvel of having the option of a replay, I got the impression that the linesman put his flag up because he thought the ball came of the United player last, and if it had then he would have been offside. exactly he wouldnt have raised his flag if he saw that it came off weir but then wed be complaining that it was offside. ifs and buts. we win . we are almost even with celtic on dodgy decisions:P Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poetry_In_Blue 1,043 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 i dont think he was put off. he was always gonna try and get in the way of the shot i was thinking if the guy wasnt there then weir would have let it run through, but he wouldnt have. he would have tried to block it. i thought it should of stood Commiting an Offside Offence 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 interfering with an opponent gaining an advantage by being in that position In your own words "if the guy wasnt there" The offside player gained an advantage by interfering with Alexanders view of the ball therefore broke the rule gaining an advantage by being in that position. Some people just don't understand californiadreamin52. It's was 100% offside. He didn't interfere with Alexander's view though, Alexander was going to his right before the ball came of Weir and caused the ball to go in the opposite direction, even Weir thought it was a goal as did the rest of the Rangers players as not a single one of them tried to claim offside. In the end the decision worked in our favour, we won the game, we have the 3 points and are still n course for the quad. That is all that matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rfc5stars 0 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Simple fact the linesman called it offside because he thought Robertson touched it in an offside position, easy enough mistake to make because ROBERTSON WAS INTERFERING WITH PLAY Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 69 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 It wasn't offside for me either. He wasn't interfering with Weir imo as he was running behind him and Weir was only trying to block the shot, not worry about where the United man was. If he`s behind Weir how is he not interfering with play why does not Weir let the ball run thought to the goalie because when someone hits a shot weir isnt going to move he hasnt got the brains to realise that yes it isnt a great shot, hes not gonna move out the way. hes gonna block it instinctively even if taht utd player was nowhere around Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ted E Bayer 506 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 Not many players are going to argue with the RULE that is interfering with play. infact I don't think maybe players even understand it as we see many ex-footballers as pundits don't on fitba shows all the time. I'm happy the ref got it right, as did his linesman. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 Simple fact the linesman called it offside because he thought Robertson touched it in an offside position, easy enough mistake to make because ROBERTSON WAS INTER FEARING WITH PLAY Lines called it of as arabs player was offside when ball was kicked regardless of it hitting Weir Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza 21 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 It wasn't offside for me either. He wasn't interfering with Weir imo as he was running behind him and Weir was only trying to block the shot, not worry about where the United man was. If he`s behind Weir how is he not interfering with play why does not Weir let the ball run thought to the goalie Weir was nevertrying to just let the ball go. He was trying to block the shot and would have had the man been there or not. Imo it was a bad desicion for them and a good one for us. Ask yourself if it had been against us, would you be fuming at the Ref and linesman? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy 69 Posted May 10, 2008 Share Posted May 10, 2008 It wasn't offside for me either. He wasn't interfering with Weir imo as he was running behind him and Weir was only trying to block the shot, not worry about where the United man was. If he`s behind Weir how is he not interfering with play why does not Weir let the ball run thought to the goalie Weir was nevertrying to just let the ball go. He was trying to block the shot and would have had the man been there or not. Imo it was a bad desicion for them and a good one for us. Ask yourself if it had been against us, would you be fuming at the Ref and linesman? yes. or if it was the team celtic was playing Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
californiadreamin52 339 Posted May 10, 2008 Author Share Posted May 10, 2008 It wasn't offside for me either. He wasn't interfering with Weir imo as he was running behind him and Weir was only trying to block the shot, not worry about where the United man was. If he`s behind Weir how is he not interfering with play why does not Weir let the ball run thought to the goalie Weir was nevertrying to just let the ball go. He was trying to block the shot and would have had the man been there or not. Imo it was a bad desicion for them and a good one for us. Ask yourself if it had been against us, would you be fuming at the Ref and linesman? Weir`s options was reduced as the result of where the opposition player was therefore interfereing with play but was still offside as result of his position when ball was kicked Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts