|
Post by Frogger Theft Auto on Feb 28, 2015 20:24:46 GMT
Swinging his leg at the ball, Crouch in an onside position: Toe to ball (and the important one), a gnat's arse offside: So fat-head is technically right. A split-second later, onside: And again: Steve Bruce: "Unfortunately, the linesman hasn't seen it that way and you expect him to get those decisions right. If the linesman does his job properly, we get a point."
Considering it takes somebody to break the replay down into millisecond frames to tell that he was briefly a gnat's arse offside, fat-head has got a high expectation of Premier League linesmen. If somebody could have called that right, then they're wasted on the line of football match, they should be fighting crime.
|
|
|
Post by stokesaint1 on Feb 28, 2015 20:25:28 GMT
Bruce needs to read tomorrow's papers and look at the score, that'll tell him he wasn't offside and even if he really was, it just compounds what a p*ss awful game the referee and linesmen had between them. They got three parts of c*ck all right, all afternoon, so wouldn't be at all suprised if they got that wrong too.
|
|
|
Post by stokester1989 on Feb 28, 2015 20:28:09 GMT
Crouch a fraction offside to me to be honest. happy days haha
|
|
|
Post by manchesterpotter on Feb 28, 2015 20:36:45 GMT
Yeah, we'll wait until then to prove you're talking arse gravy Or just look at the freeze frame above Never offside! Well possibly just a little tiny bit. My apologies, sir.
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Feb 28, 2015 20:39:36 GMT
Fucked if I can tell tbh. He may have been, he might not have been. Very hard to call without stopping it.
|
|
|
Post by Beardy200 on Feb 28, 2015 20:48:51 GMT
Or just look at the freeze frame above ;) Never offside! Well possibly just a little tiny bit. (whiteflag) My apologies, sir. Haha. Accepted ;) As others have said though, way too close to have a valid complaint about it. I like Bruce but he's clutching at straws after his team's poor performance.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 28, 2015 20:55:06 GMT
Match of the Day will probably say we invented scoring from an offside position. After all, we did invent diving and holding in the box.
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Feb 28, 2015 20:59:19 GMT
Match of the Day will probably say we invented scoring from an offside position. After all, we did invent diving and holding in the box. and long throws...
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Feb 28, 2015 21:04:16 GMT
Match of the Day will probably say we invented scoring from an offside position. After all, we did invent diving and holding in the box. and long throws... True
|
|
|
Post by ************** on Feb 28, 2015 21:06:31 GMT
If this ref. allowed it, then it probably was the wrong decision.
So, using Swarbrick's Rule we can say with absolute certainty that he was probably offside.
|
|
|
Post by nickstokefc on Feb 28, 2015 21:14:27 GMT
Dont care if it was or not, it went in
|
|
|
Post by lancer on Feb 28, 2015 21:17:47 GMT
Not one of their players appealed for offside. Brucie did say, however, that in the dressing room, they- the players- thought it was offside. We all know that players leave it until the game is over before they appeal of course, don't we? He also commented on the lineman not seeing it when he could be expected to see it. Not unlike the tackle on Ireland then, that could have finished his playing career.Between the ref and the two linesmen, they seemed to see a bloody lot that nobody else did see, that's why we got three bookings for bugger all.
|
|
|
Post by march4 on Feb 28, 2015 22:23:14 GMT
I always thought the attacker got the benefit of the doubt when it is such a marginal decision.
|
|
|
Post by CalgaryPotter on Feb 28, 2015 22:44:57 GMT
Crouch held the line perfectly. Showed his class.
|
|
|
Post by pyrus on Feb 28, 2015 22:49:28 GMT
Bruce is going to want his money back from the ref for not calling it anyway. the ref got that one right IMO, but he got a fuck of a lot wrong, most of them in Hull's favour
|
|
|
Post by right on Mar 1, 2015 4:01:42 GMT
Was barely offside, but if called, I'm fairly confident we still would have gotten a winner. We really pulled off after that.
|
|
|
Post by JoeinOz on Mar 1, 2015 4:15:44 GMT
Travel to stoke. Play shit make only sporadic attempts to attack then when you get beat blart about offside. Bollox innit
|
|
|
Post by that's our Ric on Mar 1, 2015 7:33:00 GMT
Liked Shearer's assessment on MOTD, if there's any doubt, give the benefit to the attacking team ? all complimentary about Crouch too and rightly so!
|
|
|
Post by richardparker on Mar 1, 2015 8:51:22 GMT
Marginal decision. Those can and do go either way. If given for us, we'll take it - if given against us, we'd be crying into our cornflakes. Ref's and linos should only give what they see, and otherwise have a duty to let play continue. On this occasion, they didn't see that Crouchy was marginally off when the ball was crossed in, ... thus, the goal stands!
|
|
|
Post by hartzchoco on Mar 1, 2015 8:58:10 GMT
I couldn't possibly care less.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Mar 1, 2015 8:59:22 GMT
Think you're right!
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 1, 2015 9:02:12 GMT
Certainly seemed marginally off from the MOTD analysis under the current rules. Always preferred the clear air interpretation myself.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 1, 2015 9:08:00 GMT
Liked Shearer's assessment on MOTD, if there's any doubt, give the benefit to the attacking team p? all complimentary about Crouch too and rightly so! That's why I always preferred the clear air interpretation as it guarantees that the linesman should be beyond any doubt before raising his flag. The current interpretation leads to decisions so marginal that Suarez's teeth really could be offside.
|
|
|
Post by robwahlmann on Mar 1, 2015 9:09:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Mar 1, 2015 9:17:33 GMT
This type of post match argument makes me chuckle. Similarly With Browns sending off, we look at the evidence in slow motion, frame by frame and from 20 different angles to come up with a decision. The ref and Lino get half a second that's it.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 1, 2015 9:33:29 GMT
Never offside! Well possibly just a little tiny bit. My apologies, sir. Haha. Accepted As others have said though, way too close to have a valid complaint about it. I like Bruce but he's clutching at straws after his team's poor performance. Going off topic a bit but if Bruce's head gets and fatter I'm worried his face may implode and turn inside itself.
|
|
|
Post by Gaz on Mar 1, 2015 11:20:46 GMT
Apart from which, Crouchy was moving away from goal when the cross was made. Not exactly what you would call taking advantage of a half yard if you're going away from goal.
|
|
|
Post by sheikhmomo on Mar 1, 2015 11:26:40 GMT
Bruce says in the paper today that his defenders all confirmed to him that Crouch was offside. Two weren't looking along the line at all and not one of them appealed for offside when the ball went in.
I think your players might be lying to you Steve.
|
|
|
Post by alster on Mar 1, 2015 11:29:33 GMT
Bruce says in the paper today that his defenders all confirmed to him that Crouch was offside. Two weren't looking along the line at all and not one of them appealed for offside when the ball went in. I think your players might be lying to you Steve. Don't blame them they're probably frightened he might eat them.
|
|
|
Post by ruts66 on Mar 1, 2015 11:39:25 GMT
This type of post match argument makes me chuckle. Similarly With Browns sending off, we look at the evidence in slow motion, frame by frame and from 20 different angles to come up with a decision. The ref and Lino get half a second that's it. I've watched that video clip about 20 times in a row and even now it's hard to spot a clear offside by the time you move your eyes from Charlie's foot impacting the ball to Crouchy's position. How Bruce expects the liner to see that in real time and just the once is puddled. His whole game rested on the microscopic analysis of ONE incident in 90 minutes. Tough titty, fat head - you deserved precisely nowt from that feeble effort...
|
|