Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 10,831
Yeah this.
Now that it's been highlighted on MOTD referees may think twice about overturning it too.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] Not interfering with play
- Thread starter Mental Lental
- Start date
Yeah this.
Now that it's been highlighted on MOTD referees may think twice about overturning it too.
CaptainDaveUK
Well-known member
- Oct 18, 2010
- 1,509
As others have said, Barnes is trying to get in the way of Sanchez coming out for the cross whilst also obscuring his view. Even if Sanchez has a split second view of the header, there is no way Barnes is not a distraction / interfering with play. If it was a shot from the edge of the penalty box and Barnes was either side of the post, then maybe. But if you stand within one or two feet in front of the goalie then you are in play, regardless. Both decisions correct.
Shropshire Seagull
Well-known member
Two things for me:
1. Take Barnes out of there and Big Bob is coming out to catch those crosses.
2. Some people moan when we don't position defenders inside the posts for corners - now they'll have a better tactical awareness why.
1. Take Barnes out of there and Big Bob is coming out to catch those crosses.
2. Some people moan when we don't position defenders inside the posts for corners - now they'll have a better tactical awareness why.
severnside gull
Well-known member
Absolutely this.
Rogers instructed Barnes to stand in front of the keeper. Ergo his intention was to interfere with play. He succeeded and that coincided with being in an offside position. Correctly flagged & “goals” disallowed.
Lucky for us. Unlucky for them. But absolutely correct.
The penalty? It was as much a foul as Tarkowski on Maupay at Burnley. Referees and VAR have a way to go.
Wardy's twin
Well-known member
- Oct 21, 2014
- 8,483
Went up to bed and realised my mistake regards the offside and corner.... So that goal probably should have stood but as you say there have been heaps of bad decisions against us in past.
Definitely THIS, especially seeing that cringing smug celebration made by Rogers of two arms in the air whenever Leicester score a ‘goal’ which to me implies that he believes he deserves the credit as they wouldn’t be able to score without his ‘brilliant coaching’ seeing him quickly drop his arms following the refs decision was great to watch. Definitely payback following his same celebration after the last minute winner we conceded in the cup match against them last season.
Sweet victory, particularly when that plum Schmeichel was giving it the big 'un when he thought they'd made it 2-2
Never seen a keeper sprint off the pitch at the final whistle so quickly.
Jesus Gul
Well-known member
- Feb 23, 2004
- 5,478
Maybe not line of sight but Barnes would've been in Sanchez's peripheral vision for the second one and stood in a space Rob could've moved into during the play. Marginal at best. Saying that the ball was past him in a flash so v unlucky Foxes.
As for Maupay - yes he did impede Vestergard - should've been a foul. Of course there's the Tarkowski push that didn't go our way - this was very similar to when Arsenal's keeper was impeded by the Brentford defender for the second goal of that game. Why are they letting these go?
As for Maupay - yes he did impede Vestergard - should've been a foul. Of course there's the Tarkowski push that didn't go our way - this was very similar to when Arsenal's keeper was impeded by the Brentford defender for the second goal of that game. Why are they letting these go?
exactly, I don't like the way Leicester play, underhand and a bit dirty.
tough shit foxes.
Whitley Bayster
Well-known member
The Barnes push was initiated whilst in an offside position as the ball was kicked. Therefore he is offside for interfering with play. The fact that Sanchez wouldn't have got close to the subsequent header is irrelevant because of the nudge
Sheebo
Well-known member
- Jul 13, 2003
- 29,309
You can’t be offside from a corner! He’s only offside once N’didi headers it - so what happens before that is irrelevant.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Take a look at Burnleys goal against us, and the blocking off of Sanchez, not offside because at the point Tarkowski heads it, we have players on the line, but I would argue it is an obstruction. I think it was no accident that Barnes was left to be in an offside position, it is a response to the blocking the keeper tactic, and it worked out for us this time. Other officials in other games may see it differently, and we concede a goal that might have been blocked by a defender on the line, but it is a much studied action, how your opposition take and defend corners, how officials tend to see certain actions, what will and won't have a decent chance of being judged in your favour etc. and then the Manager needs to make a choice as to the best way to deal with it. Seems GP got it right to me.
Edit: Obstruction rule is gone, impeding is the offence now.
Edit: Obstruction rule is gone, impeding is the offence now.
Last edited:
AZ Gull
@SeagullsAcademy Threads: @bhafcacademy
[TWEET]1439920249407787011[/TWEET]
