Palace vs Southampton Match Thread
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 MKCPFC  Spain/MK 03 Jan 18 4.43pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by PZ Eagle
Maybe not the right thread to say this but having just read the Saints web on last night's game they are in meltdown and are baying for Pelegrino's head. Were we really in for him or did he turn us down in favour of them? Looks like we were saved from certain relegation. Interesting isn't it ? I would just like to add I enjoyed the save by Wayne last night in the first half.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
Daddyorc  Atlantic Highlands, NJ 03 Jan 18 4.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by boo909
Yeah I remember him being in a bunch of Southampton players, no way he was offside, just the Guardian's normal anti Palace bias, they've never particularly liked us, I think it sticks in their craw that we're forcing them to say nice things about us at the moment. Cheers mate. They showed it on NBCSN over here. Tekkers was NOT half a yard offside. There's a possibility he was about 2 to 4 inches offside, and he was in-between 2 Saints. It's one of those that is very unlikely to be called as it was WAY too close. Anyway, water under the bridge.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| JRW2 Dulwich 03 Jan 18 5.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by YT
There were clear offsides - in my opinion - in other games on MotD last night that weren't given. On the contrary, it never crossed my mind that CB was even close to offside. The offside rule has become a farce anyhow. It used to be that one's wife would be unable to explain the offside rule, but I think that has now extended to oneself. I think that the offside rule, if properly applied, encourages well constructed and skilful attacking play. The problem is that, given the speed of movement of ball and players, and the fact that officials standing perhaps the width of a pitch away are trying to adjudicate on a matter involving just a few inches, it's impossible for them not to make errors. Bearing in mind that goals depend on them getting it right, I would have no objection to video technology being used in theses situations. Getting back on topic, my own view, for what it's worth, is that technology would have shown Benteke to be offside.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mendi 03 Jan 18 7.45pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Stunning result. What a job Roy Hodgson has done.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 03 Jan 18 8.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by JRW2
I think that the offside rule, if properly applied, encourages well constructed and skilful attacking play. The problem is that, given the speed of movement of ball and players, and the fact that officials standing perhaps the width of a pitch away are trying to adjudicate on a matter involving just a few inches, it's impossible for them not to make errors. Bearing in mind that goals depend on them getting it right, I would have no objection to video technology being used in theses situations. Getting back on topic, my own view, for what it's worth, is that technology would have shown Benteke to be offside. I think Tekkers is very fractionally offside for a moment but how do you synchronise that with the moment at which the ball is kicked. When he heads it he is not in front of a defender so nothing there. Why, as an official, give anything marginal or unsure? Because they are human beings under pressure having to give instant decisions. My idea of a good official would be one who just doesn't give penalties. Then we can rediscover football?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BuckinghamshireEagle 03 Jan 18 8.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Sky showed one of their freeze frames at the moment the ball was struck. Benteke was leaning towards the goal, the last defender was leaning away so it looked offside, but the defender’s foot was nearer to the goal than any part of Benteke’s body except for part of an arm. An excellent and correct call by the referee’s assistant.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| steeleye20 Croydon 03 Jan 18 9.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Why don't they call it POTD not MOTD. 'An hour of penalty analysis occasionally interrupted by football'. Roy sounded irritated with it as there was plenty of good football in the game. And some costly wrong offside decisions last night elsewhere. But then that's me. Offside..........
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dreamwaverider London 03 Jan 18 10.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Everton are 7 points off the relegation zone in 9th place. All so close Edited by dreamwaverider (03 Jan 2018 10.17pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
kenbarr  Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 03 Jan 18 11.51pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
The general rule of thumb when it comes to offside is the benefit of the doubt should go to the offense. I guess the pundits for something to justify their pay checks.
Divorced...And LOVING it! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| dp Tunbridge Wells 04 Jan 18 1.07am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by kenbarr
The general rule of thumb when it comes to offside is the benefit of the doubt should go to the offense. I guess the pundits for something to justify their pay checks. Yes. Even if Benteke might have been marginally closer to the goal than the defender, it can hardly be called a mistake. The ref called it as he saw it, nobody has said he 100% was wrong, just that the call might have gone the other way. Our turn to enjoy a bit of luck.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 04 Jan 18 3.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by steeleye20
I think Tekkers is very fractionally offside for a moment but how do you synchronise that with the moment at which the ball is kicked. When he heads it he is not in front of a defender so nothing there. Why, as an official, give anything marginal or unsure? Because they are human beings under pressure having to give instant decisions. My idea of a good official would be one who just doesn't give penalties. Then we can rediscover football?
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| kenbarr Jackson Heights, Queens, New York ... 04 Jan 18 6.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
This is why VAR should over-rule only if the evidence is clear. What we don't want is what the NFL has got right now with then is a catch not a catch. We're getting decisions made by a replay official that are taking points off the board for decisions that are based on frame by frame scrutiny. If the video evidence isn't conclusive, and judging by the opinions expressed in this thread it isn't, the original ruling should stand.
Divorced...And LOVING it! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.