-
Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.
*Official* English Football Season 2014-15
- Thread starter GIMH
- Start date
cpr
International Coach
Though I reckon the ref got the 'offside' right. Rooney wasn't interfering with play - If he was blocking the keepers line of sight then yes, but he wasn't at all. The ball wasn't played 'to him', so theres nothing he could do bar put his hands up and step away.
Also Dowd bottled sending off Davies, who was up to his old tricks all game anyway.
Also Dowd bottled sending off Davies, who was up to his old tricks all game anyway.
sledger
Spanish_Vicente
No I have never heard of this. What is this overseas of which you speak?
Ikki
Hall of Fame Member
He is standing in front of the keeper and Rooney opened himself up which got the ball to run past him. That's going to distract the keeper so he is interfering with play IMO.
He also clearly dived, but when the keeper comes out like that he's asking for the player to go down. Stupid.
dontcloseyoureyes
BARNES OUT
The team you played in Manchester a few weeks ago played worse than what you'll get from United. Wishful thinking.
Magrat Garlick
Rather Mad Witch
Always someone else's fault eh.
cpr
International Coach
Actually the shot came from the centre, going right (in the keepers POV). Rooney was off to the right, and stepped further right when he realised the ball might hit him. The ball passed to the inside of Rooney. At no point was Rooney in direct eye line to the ball from the keepers view, even when he was moving out of the way. A distraction maybe, but obstructing the view and interfering with play, no.
Also I saw someone on Facebook (an Arsenal fan no less!) state that the rules were re-worded a few years ago to allow for a foul/penalty when the intent of a tackle causes the player to take evasive action, even if no direct contact is made. So although Rooney made a right meal of it (yeah, dived), the fact the keeper came out, missed the ball and made Rooney have to hurdle him or face being caught enough to warrent a penalty.
I've not checked the rules myself, so could be rubbish.....
Tom Halsey
International Coach
I thought it was a clear dive and yet also a clear penalty. Definitely don't need contact for a foul.
The offside though may not have been offside by the letter of the law but I think it's a poor law if so. There's no way that the presence of Rooney didn't influence the keeper into going down later than he would otherwise have done.
The offside though may not have been offside by the letter of the law but I think it's a poor law if so. There's no way that the presence of Rooney didn't influence the keeper into going down later than he would otherwise have done.