Thetownend.com

why is he still a ref. Another appalling decision giving City a pen. Also sending of Habib Beye. Robinho scored from the pen.

Fucking joke that decision, Robinho is a cheating little twat

Not watching the game, but sounds like him all over.
In fact the ref we had against Huddersfield, cant remember his name, I thought he was top draw, get rid of the old school tarts, and let guys like him have a chance.

dont mind a sending off and a pen-I got £100 riding on 3+ goals

For City or in the game?

in the whole game at 5/4 or 4/5...can't remember which!

1-1

beye only slightly touched the ball, not sure how styles was supposed to notice that.

2-1....ker-ching!

Cracking finish by Dunne

2-2 Ireland.

How could Robinho stay on his feet after a tackle like that, yes the NUFC player ot the ball but he did tackle across Robinho so it's no wonder the lad fell over, definitely not a pen tho.

If this was anyone but Rob Stlyes the reaction would be minimal. Fair enough Beye got a toe on the ball but he mad contact with the player before he got the ball and, if you look at the replay from behind the ref, there is no way he could have seen the touch on the ball. Also, to accuse Robinho of diving is ridiculous, as said above he was tackled strongly and from the side. Jo on the other hand did dive.

Agree 100%, to accuse Robinho of diving is stupid!

Anyone see Craig Burley on Setanta, he was livid with Graham Poll for backing up the referee saying he would have awarded a penalty.

Graham Poll is a cock, really don't like the bloke.  Especially after reading his column post the Dutch "offside" goal in the Euro's, that was never offside.  Poll (even days later) refused to back down, as he thought it was the worst decision to let the goal stand.  The bloke is a fool.

I'd love to smack Poll right in the fucking mouth.

As for Styles last night, anyone who fucks over Newcastle is alright by me! Should've sent Given off for crying like a tart about it.

talking of that goal did anyone see Wolves 2nd goal at the weekend?

Ebanks Blake was stood off the pitch when Keira Kightly had a shot which the keeper parried up in the air, Ebanks Blake runs back on and nods it into the net.  

total bollocks.  if an attacking player is off the pitch behind the goal line, then they should be considered as being on the goal line (if interfering) and therefore offside in most cases.

I did see that CT, the commentator didn't really mention it during the Championship programme which I thought was odd.

I think 9 out of 10 refs would have given that as a Pen.

The odd one being a stonewall at the County Ground probably.

Sorry CT, you're talking bollocks yourself. How can you be interfering if you're not even on the pitch ?

There could have been a case for disallowing the goal for not getting the ref's permisson to come back onto the pitch, but that doesn't really hold true as anybody accidentally running over the lines would theoretically be in the same position.

How could he not be interfering?  He scored by outjumping the keeper a yard out 2 seconds after the initial shot FFS!

Where was he 'when the ball was kicked' ?

I think the word 'after' gives it away - not that I'm really that worried - sounds like the sort of thing that'd happen against us the way things are going.

He was off the pitch Neville.  This is why I said in my initial post that in those circumstances the player behind the goal line should be treated as if they are stood right on the goal line. 

He didnt try to gain an advantage, his momenteum just took him off, but he sure as hell got an advantage.

although i do agree it sounds like the sort of thing that'd happen against us the way things are going. although probably with some comedy defending 1st

CT's right the lad was behind the goal line therefore there were not two opposing players in between him (the striker) and the goal line, therefore the bloke was offside when the other Wolves player took his shot. 

If you aren't on the pitch, you aren't between the last defender and the goal though, and therefore not offside.

You cannot use the excuse of being off the pitch to your advantage though, here being off the pitch meant that he gained an unfair advantage.  A little bit like Panucci during the euro's against the Dutch when quite rightly that goal was allowed to stand.

If he was off the pitch he couldn't have been in the opponent's half. CT I don't think you can 'deem' him to be on the goal line otherwise wouldn't you have to do the same with defenders as well , in which case you'd have many fewer offsides.

Wow,  this is like those old comic strips "You are the Ref"

In that instance even if he's off the pitch he's still offside. Just like if a defender stands behind the goal-line for a direct freekick [and then steps up onto it after the ball is played] he would be playing every attacking player onside (assuming the goalkeeper was where you'd expect him to be).

I agree with micheal. If you're involved in the game, which the guy clearly was, then you should be considered offside. The only exception should be if you are receiving treatment for an injury or something

You can't be affecting the game or offside if you're off the pitch. The offsideness of an attacker is "when the ball is played"

If the defender claims the attacker was offside because the defender was behind the goalline, I believe the correct decision would be for the free kick to be retaken, and the defender to be cautioned for leaving the pitch without the referee's permission. (because he was seeking to gain an advantage by doing so in hoping the attacker would be offside) this is not the same as defending a corner etc.

Any qualified referees care to clear this up ?

The kick would not be retaken, you are correct by stating when the ball is played. If an able player leaves the pitch after the ball is kicked he is active. If the player leaves the pitch before the ball is kicked he would be booked for unsporting behaviour and the kick would be retaken.

Thanks Ref.

But the rules are stupid in this scenario.  Refs (rightly) dont just book players whos' momenteum makes them run or slide off the pitch.

There is also a lack of consistancy here. If Pannuci was deemed to be playing van nistelrooy onside desepite being off the pitch at the euros, why was ebanks blake not deemed to be offside whilst off the pitch ?   surely the same should apply to both defenders and attackers in this kind of scenario?