-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Livermore and Parker
- Thread starter diego_maradona
- Start date
Apart from Rose, I would agree with that.
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
Parker really fudged up didn't he...Goal tally currently stands at -1.
punk_is_back`
Ilie Dumitrescu
I don't think he would have thought that the ball would hit him, but still he should have known he was potentially running into an offside position. I don't think he understands the attacking game at all.
Spursalot
Jimmy McCormick
I was wondering if he would have been far better just running all the way into the net, that way if the ball had hit him, it would already have crossed the line and have been considered a goal, no?
He obviously did not think about it at the time..
DHSF
Les Ferdinand
Technically he was interfering - The goal will have been given to him so of course he would have been interfering. I am unsure why people cannot see that. He, and NOT Saha, would have been given that goal.
If he ran all the way in behind the line that would have been a different story
Wriggly
Banned
Why then when a shot is taken and is going in the net but takes a deflection on its way in from a defender its not an own goal ? Could it be
a) it was going in anyway
b) it was going in anyway
c) it was going in anyway
Charlie
Radek Cerny
You cannot tell with absolute certainty whether the keeper could have save the original non-deflected shot or not. So credit is given to the offensive player unless it is absolutely certain that the original shot would not have gone in.
Regardless, you might be confusing the offside rule with crediting who the goal scorer is. The former is the law of the game while the latter is not.
mick cooper
Neil Sullivan
I believe you are right, I seem to remember that coming up on a "you are the ref" question ie no longer being on the field of play
however, this interfering with play rule seems a bit of a catch all.
spurspinter1
Steve Carr
I think changing our plans to have a few CM's that are energetic and strong in the tackle is fine, however, changing to a 3-5-2 out of respect to the opponent did grate on me slightly. Only Nelsen really benefitted, Kaboul looked lost and Dawson...well...
WookieD
Didier Zokora
This for me. Essentially we stuck 7 defensive players on the pitch (well, Walker and Rose should have been attacking outlets, and only Rose accomplished that).
I said at the start of the game that it was madness. Playing an unfimiliar formation, with a starting XI half made up of reserves, with a playmaker who has never played playmaker before and 7 defensive outfield players. It showed a ridiculous amount of respect to Stevenage to change things so much.
When Lennon came on it showed that we could play football on that pitch. We don't have a mid week game, we should have gone out at 100% imo. Now we have to play a mid-week game, not really ideal.
Still, we're still in the cup, have a favourable draw next round assuming we get through and Arsenal are labouring more than us. Hopefully we're still all good.
braineclipse
Steve Sedgley
For those saying that the system is to blame rather than the selection of players, we played a pretty standard formation against Watford and it didn't work any better than against Stevenage. Especially after Modric came off at half time after having been cutting in from the left in the first half. Even though he had a poor game by his standards he at least gave us some options to play the ball trhough the centre in that first half. Livermore and Parker offer very little.
With very few execptions it's been the same all season when two out of Parker, Livermore and Sandro have made up a central midfield duo.
We need a central playmaker type to work. Not to stressed about it as long as Modric stays fit as he will start every game in the PL when available.
With very few execptions it's been the same all season when two out of Parker, Livermore and Sandro have made up a central midfield duo.
We need a central playmaker type to work. Not to stressed about it as long as Modric stays fit as he will start every game in the PL when available.
Klinsmania
Bobby Zamora
I think LIvermore has done well for us this season, in fact better than I expected. But I thought he was poor yesterday. Too many heavy first touches, and too many misplaced passes. Defensively he was sound, and put in lots of good challenges, but his inability to retain possession yesterday put us under more pressure than we should have expected.
Klinsmania
Bobby Zamora
I disagree. I must admit that I haven't bothered to look up the exact wording of the relevant law, but aren't you only offside if you are seeking to gain, or are in the opinion of the referee, are gaining an advantage by being in an offside position? What possible advantage was there in him being on the line, deflecting a goal bound shot that would have gone in in any event? If he had not been there then the goal would have stood. The fact he was there meant that the goal was disallowed, so how is his positioning advantageous?
WookieD
Didier Zokora
It's a combination of things imo (all stated above). We should have started with Niko in the middle and tasked him with providing a constant passing outlet more than trying to create forward momentum so that we could get the ball flowing more.
As much as I love Parker, there were a couple of times where he had his back to goal in our third, there was a gaping hole in the midfield with opposition players high up on his flanks and it doesn't even occur to him to turn... he rarely ever turns... and just passed it back into defence. That's exactly where you need Niko or Modric to turn around and lap up all of the space quickly before Stevanage can set their defence up. Also, if you look up the word "dither" in the dictionary, I'm sure Scotty boy would be there smiling back at you. Still, we're third and it's largely down to him, so I'll just say thank you.
lurker of old
Gus Poyet
What possible advantage was there in him being on the line, deflecting a goal bound shot that would have gone in in any event? If he had not been there then the goal would have stood. The fact he was there meant that the goal was disallowed, so how is his positioning advantageous?
I thought it was a daft one too. The ball was going in whether he was there or not - just seems a bizarre law - that if it hadn't struck him it would have been a goal, I can't get my head around modern offside!
I thought it was a daft one too. The ball was going in whether he was there or not - just seems a bizarre law - that if it hadn't struck him it would have been a goal, I can't get my head around modern offside!
Wriggly
Banned
Thats what I was thinking too. Parker was not gaining an advantage, nor was he obstructing or interfering with play as the ball was basically on the goal line when it deflected off him.