*Official* English Football Season 2005-06

[open365]

I'm gtetting sick of media people complaining about the Cisse offside decision.

He didn't interfere with play, the opposition would have done exactly the same thing had he not been there, this is why the offside rule was introduced, to stop good attacking moves beind ruined because an insignificant player was offside. Everyone seems to be so shortsited, the new rule is much better than the old one, just because they're to stupid to work out what is classed as interfering

 

[BoyBrumby]

I'm gtetting sick of media people complaining about the Cisse offside decision.

He didn't interfere with play, the opposition would have done exactly the same thing had he not been there, this is why the offside rule was introduced, to stop good attacking moves beind ruined because an insignificant player was offside. Everyone seems to be so shortsited, the new rule is much better than the old one, just because they're to stupid to work out what is classed as interfering

Disagree. Sorry.

The old rule had the great virtue of simplicity about it: if a player was offside, he was offside. With the new rule refs & linos have to psychoanalyse every players' intention. In this particular incident if Cisse wasn't seeking to gain advantage why he flick a boot at the ball?

I think it was no lesser personage than Bill Shankly who said of offsides "If a player's not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.”

 

[marc71178]

As the Fiver put it.

If the rule is amended to include missing the ball, will Heskey ever be given offside again?

 

[open365]

Disagree. Sorry.

The old rule had the great virtue of simplicity about it: if a player was offside, he was offside. With the new rule refs & linos have to psychoanalyse every players' intention. In this particular incident if Cisse wasn't seeking to gain advantage why he flick a boot at the ball?

I think it was no lesser personage than Bill Shankly who said of offsides "If a player's not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be.”

The simplicity of a rule shouldn't have a greater bearing than the effect said rule has on the game. I don't think it is that hard to understand a players intentions, Cisse's actions were quite obvious, he sees the ball and his intial movement is to go to the ball, but then he realises he will be offside if he touches it, so he lets it go. I don't see what's so hard about seeing if a player is interfering in play, the quesiton you should allways ask is, if the player was not there, would the oppositions reaction differed? And with the Cisse incident, the players acted in exactly the same way as if he wasn't there.

 

[roseboy64]

I can't believe the ref didn't give that as a penalty. And then telling Mari to get up. What an idiot.

 

[BoyBrumby]

The simplicity of a rule shouldn't have a greater bearing than the effect said rule has on the game. I don't think it is that hard to understand a players intentions, Cisse's actions were quite obvious, he sees the ball and his intial movement is to go to the ball, but then he realises he will be offside if he touches it, so he lets it go. I don't see what's so hard about seeing if a player is interfering in play, the quesiton you should allways ask is, if the player was not there, would the oppositions reaction differed? And with the Cisse incident, the players acted in exactly the same way as if he wasn't there.

So Cisse should be rewarded for mistiming his run? I think you may also be giving him too much credit; it looked like an air-shot to me.

To paraphase Mr Shankly, if a player isn't intefering with play, why's he on the pitch?

On an unrelated topic, 1-0 to The Arsenal!

 

[roseboy64]

The simplicity of a rule shouldn't have a greater bearing than the effect said rule has on the game. I don't think it is that hard to understand a players intentions, Cisse's actions were quite obvious, he sees the ball and his intial movement is to go to the ball, but then he realises he will be offside if he touches it, so he lets it go. I don't see what's so hard about seeing if a player is interfering in play, the quesiton you should allways ask is, if the player was not there, would the oppositions reaction differed? And with the Cisse incident, the players acted in exactly the same way as if he wasn't there.

Are you blind?

 

[open365]

So Cisse should be rewarded for mistiming his run? I think you may also be giving him too much credit; it looked like an air-shot to me.

To paraphase Mr Shankly, if a player isn't intefering with play, why's he on the pitch?

On an unrelated topic, 1-0 to The Arsenal!

Cisse didn't make any sort of run, he was in the wong place at the wrong time.

It was obvious that he intended to hit it but then realised he would be interfering in play so he didn't, i think your giving the french buffon more credit than he's worth(not hard) by saying he intentionaly tried to dummy-shoot.

Stop saying the Frankly phrase, players are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, you know aswell as i do that a player isn't making an impact on the game for every second he plays.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Cisse didn't make any sort of run, he was in the wong place at the wrong time.

It was obvious that he intended to hit it but then realised he would be interfering in play so he didn't, i think your giving the french buffon more credit than he's worth(not hard) by saying he intentionaly tried to dummy-shoot.

Stop saying the Frankly phrase, players are caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, you know aswell as i do that a player isn't making an impact on the game for every second he plays.

I wasn't suggesting he meant to dummy the ball! Rather that he had a swing-and-a-miss.

My contention is it should be a part of a striker's skill-range to make sure they aren't caught in the wrong time at the wrong place. &, to be fair to the officials, I think their job is hard enough without having to make a decision that will always be, by definition, subjective. You can argue Cisse was passive, I can argue he was active, but what isn't in dispute is that he was in an offside position.

 

[Scaly piscine]

I can't believe the ref didn't give that as a penalty. And then telling Mari to get up. What an idiot.

Figures, CDMs get their way as usual.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Job half done. No away goal conceded, which could be absolutely crucial.

 

[sledger]

yeah a good solid performance in which arsenal perhaps should have had one more goal, but great performance from gilberto and hleb once again in particular, if arsenal play like that again next week and shut riquelme down then a passage to the final should be in the bag.

 

[Neil Pickup]

I'm gtetting sick of media people complaining about the Cisse offside decision.

He didn't interfere with play, the opposition would have done exactly the same thing had he not been there, this is why the offside rule was introduced, to stop good attacking moves beind ruined because an insignificant player was offside. Everyone seems to be so shortsited, the new rule is much better than the old one, just because they're to stupid to work out what is classed as interfering

You're not a centre-back, are you?

 

[Langeveldt]

My dads turning into a Manure fan, im gutted, and therefore happy to see Arsenal doing well as I can't stand Chelsea's antics

 

[sledger]

You're not a centre-back, are you?

no, hes a potatoe.

 

[Langeveldt]

no, hes a potatoe.

would have been good if you'd spelt potato correctly

 

[steds]

My dads turning into a Manure fan, im gutted, and therefore happy to see Arsenal doing well as I can't stand Chelsea's antics

Yeah. Their winning sickens me, too. How dare they?

 

[sledger]

would have been good if you'd spelt potato correctly

there is more than one way..to skin a cat.

 

[steds]

there is more than one way..to skin a cat.

How about peeling a potato, though?

 

[sledger]

depends what kind of potato it is i guess.