Rob Styles

[DMR]

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.

[Colin Todd]

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.

[janaage]

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

[yeo]

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

[leefer]

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

[nevillew]

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.

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.

[Colin Todd]

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!

[nevillew]

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.

[Colin Todd]

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

[janaage]

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. 

[LucienSanchez]

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

[janaage]

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.

[nevillew]

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"

[michael]

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).

[reeves4england]

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