Hoopers Goal

I've still not seen the diets penalty but my bhoy just informed me that Beattie said he would be annoyed if their penalty was given against them

 

wasn't two yards offside no but he was offside.
not having a go at you here but i'm just absolutely sick of every controversial decision going for us being met with - well it was so close you couldn't tell, 50/50 etc and every one against us is more cheating huns

 

Please, show me where this is stated in the rules.
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame/index.html

 

His standing foot is in line with the last defender, so it actually is a tough one to call. They don't adhere to the rules in any other decisions they make (penalty decisions, for example), so it would have been very harsh to rule him offside because his knee is protruding slightly.

 

the daylight rule only lasted a year or so did it not?

 

I don't need to look at the rules, just hearing every pundit up and down the country (even in England) stating that exact fact.

Striker gets the benefit of the doubt, there should be clear daylight, yadda yadda yadda...

There isn't only not clear daylight but he might actually be on but for a kneecap.

Are there really Celtic fans going to call him off by a bended leg just so they can rub it into the "paranoid brigade" ?

Says more about them that us tbh...

 

BTW.

2 minutes from me posting to you reading the full FIFA rulebook?

Kudos to you mate, you must have a real hard on for me to read all of that in 2 minutes...

 

I think he was offside we got a bit of luck for once ........ and then ............... well that is another story

 

if hearts or anyone else for that matter had scored that against us i wouldnt be complaining that it was given , trying to defend or justify that penalty decision by saying look at hoopers goal is * ridiculous

 

HAHA! People saying ''It's onside, his right leg is just a bit offside''....... so he is offside. It is his leg after all. It's too close to call for an official watching the game in real time, but if you can't see that is offside in the picture then you need your eyes checked or green tinted glasses replaced.

 

If you have a iPhone/IPod zoom right in on it, it dosent look as offside as from far away. Millimetres.

 

Fractional. His back leg is level, as is most of his body but his knee wanders into an offside position. For me it goes into the category of one I'd happily take on the chin without complaints if it was given against us, especially after seeing it happen in real time where he looked onside and also I don't remember too many complaints from the Hearts players. Very difficult one to call in real time.

 

He's * offside. Simple. Conspiracy theorists will have to think of something else.

 

Pundits don't write the rules, and a lot of them don't know the rules.

'Benefit of the doubt' means that a linesman shouldn't call a player offside unless he sees they are definitely offside. This is what happened today. But that doesn't mean he was onside, it just explains why the goal was allowed (unfairly) to stand.

Don't flatter yourself. I knew that you wouldn't be able to find any 'daylight' rule in the rulebook because it's nonsense. And FYI, the 'offside' section of the rule book is a few sentences long, I'm sure I could read it in 2 minutes if I wanted to.

 

And yet it seems like you didn't.

I've watched football from Inverness to Cape Town, From Aberdeen to Argentina

Are you telling me that everyone is wrong? That the striker is not meant to get the benefit of the doubt in that situation?

Or that your nitpicking over the most contentious of decisions is spiting what are clear facts of blatant bias for what reason I can only imagine?

 

He's offside

 

He was offside. I can understand how the officials missed it though... it was as tight a call as they come.

 

It's borderline and almost impossible to call, like the Huns 2nd goal a few weeks ago. It certainly can't be labeled a dodgy decision.

 

We got one and they got one. Time to move on and improve the team.