Browni Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 As per topic Oops, should have added a linky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orinoco Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 looking at Aberdeen's goal should it not have been ruled offside. Aluko was onside but their other attacker came from behind the motherwell defence and ran towards the ball blocking our defender. Not that it matter tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadywellToi Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 I'm at a loss, the 4" x 3" video makes it hard to full see things, but Lasley's challenge does look very dodgy. May look better from another angle but with only one camera there ...... If Jamie had squared it to Humphrey then it would be so much sweeter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 If Jamie had squared it to Humphrey then it would be so much sweeter. This sounded a terrible miss on the radio but seeing the highlights, Humphrey had managed to get himself into an offside position ahead of Murphy. If the ball had been cut back it would have had to go behind Humphrey and then Murphy really would have been slaughtered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadywellToi Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Don't know Humphrey can be offside when Stevie Smith is on the line. Once he rounded Langfield, got his balance again and in a position to pass, Humphrey was well onside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al B Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 There has to be two defending team players between the most advanced attacker and the goal. It's just usually thought of as being one because the other is generally the goalie. Once Murphy rounds Langfield there would have to be 2 defenders goal-side of Humphrey. As it was, he was about 3 yards offside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foghorn Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Don't know Humphrey can be offside when Stevie Smith is on the line. Once he rounded Langfield, got his balance again and in a position to pass, Humphrey was well onside. Aye but he didn't get his balance due to the sheep on his back. 2 good goals for the 'Well and a result to set us up for Saturday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grant Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Why are the highlights always really shite quality and with only one camera angle? You can't even see Hartley kicking out and Lasley's takle looked a bit dodgy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan09 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 i think murphy just got the ball caught at his feet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadywellToi Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 There has to be two defending team players between the most advanced attacker and the goal. It's just usually thought of as being one because the other is generally the goalie. Once Murphy rounds Langfield there would have to be 2 defenders goal-side of Humphrey. As it was, he was about 3 yards offside. If the ball is played forward, I agree, if its squared or played backwards then its all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcalf Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 If the ball is played forward, I agree, if its squared or played backwards then its all good. But what happens if the Humph is indeed offside and runs back to retrieve the ball which has just been played backwards? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellfan09 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 and aye lasleys tackle/challenge did look dodgy but its a shit view and it obviously wasnt that bad as the referee was right next to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malky79 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Lasley's challenge looked like an honest attempt to get up and win the ball, but the arm does go up and hits Hartley. In modern day fitba a foul and possibly a booking. But shit happens and Hartley is a dick for retaliating, not that the internet highlights really show what he did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steelboy Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 i actually think hartley might have been taking the opportunity to hit keith in his already damaged ribs as much as lashing out because of the challenge. he is a sleekit wee prick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busta Nut Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 It was given as a foul by lasley, aberdeen restarted the game with a free kick. Murphy's miss was shocking, he fell over the baw. and hutchy was all over the place for their goal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickoza Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Their goal was a clear block on Craggs - seen fouls given for that elsewhere on a park. Felt a bit for Murph, did everything right then the ball just got caught under his feet. Happens. Still scored the winner right enough! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kmcalpin Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Their goal was a clear block on Craggs - seen fouls given for that elsewhere on a park. Yes, Ricky it was most definitely offside if not a foul for obstruction. Should have been chalked off. It could have cost us big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superwell87 Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 This sounded a terrible miss on the radio but seeing the highlights, Humphrey had managed to get himself into an offside position ahead of Murphy. If the ball had been cut back it would have had to go behind Humphrey and then Murphy really would have been slaughtered.I recon iby what i seen on the highlights, if Murphy hadn't lost his footing he would have scored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well_Jaggy Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Yes, Ricky it was most definitely offside if not a foul for obstruction. Should have been chalked off. It could have cost us big time.I don't think the sheep goal was offside. aluko hit the ball forward, then collected it himself and scored. Obstruction? Maybe. haven't seen a foul for obstruction in many a year though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paisley Steelman Posted February 16, 2011 Report Share Posted February 16, 2011 Seem to have been a lot more positive, some or the misses were really close. Hopefully McCall has found a gem in Forbes that the old gits couldn't see. I impressed by the effort put in by Jeffers too. BUT best of all, pumping the sheep .Job done. Bring on the Accies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Diggle Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 Hopefully McCall has found a gem in Forbes that the old gits couldn't see. More than 'the old gits' can't see a player in Forbes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weesacs Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 from the highlights........ nice free kick from Forbes nice to see Murphy putting his foot through the ball (rather than some powder puff shots in previous weeks) nice foot work shown by Jeffers nice header from Jeffers for the goal, but what an amazing cross from Craigan! as for their goal.....good play from Aluko and clever play from Blackman - if he gets in front of Craigan, why should he move??? but all in all - GIRFUY Broon. we'll pump your other team on saturday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daver Posted February 17, 2011 Report Share Posted February 17, 2011 But what happens if the Humph is indeed offside and runs back to retrieve the ball which has just been played backwards? That would have been ok as the ball needs to be played forward for a player to be offside, although it would have had to have been a bit of a trundler for him to catch it. Great win though. Watched Reporting Scotland last night hoping to catch the goals as they normally show them. Instead they just stated who scored so they could fit in a piece of nonsense about what Gattuso and Jordan might have said when talking "Scottish". Utter pish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadywellToi Posted February 18, 2011 Report Share Posted February 18, 2011 Regardless of being legal or not, odds are the officials would get it wrong whatever was correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.