The great was he wasn't he poll

[WelshSpikeMikey]

Shouldn't have stood, but goals have gone against us in the past, and so have decisions when we're attacking [see the two rubbish offside decisions by the linesman today late on, Fowler's disallowed goals in previous matches etc]. Blackburn fans can moan about it, but it doesn't bother me, cos we won. Simple as that, really.

[Benitez]

I am sure there are as many Blackburn fans who would have taken the goal if it was them in the same position.

 

 

well obviously.

 

I'll gladly take the goal today and our overall play merited the win as far as I'm concerned.

 

But Cisse was still offside and active in the build up as far as I'm concerned!

[Gomez]

It was offside, but we deserved the win and Cisse, Garcia and Kewell all should have made it moot.

 

They've gone against us more times than for us this season, so I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Ombudsam]

I think the ref allowed it because they wanted the legitimacy of our win questioned because they hate us and only give decisions to big clubs.

[Lee W]

Didn't some Scottish bloke say if you weren't interferring with play you shouldn't be on the pitch ?

[abc]

Didn't some Scottish bloke say if you weren't interferring with play you shouldn't be on the pitch ?

 

andy gray?

[Jim D]

Was offside.......though swings and roundabouts, Fowler has had two goals wrongly chalked off this season in similar circumstances.

[dyl]

It was a cast iron goal. The player in an offside position was Cisse - and as it was him he can't have been interfering with play - it's just not in him to do so!

[Rushian]

It should have stood under the laws as they currently stand.

 

The International Football Association Board defines interfering with play as

"playing or touching the ball when it has been passed or touched by a team-mate".

 

And from FIFA's questions and answers on the laws of the game:

 

8. A player in an offside position but not interfering with any opponent

runs towards the ball played by a team-mate. Must the referee wait

until he touches the ball to penalise him?

 

Yes. The referee must wait and see if the player in an offside position

finally interferes with play by touching the ball.

Edited April 16, 2006 by Rushian

[Jim D]

New International FA Board Decision 2

 

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

 

* Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team mate.

 

* Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent?s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

 

* Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

 

 

Was offside according to that rule.

[Kite]

I'd say today was the first time this season we saw the correct use of the offside rule in letting the goal stand, ie the player is only offside when he plays the ball. The fact that it's a totally stupid rule is perhaps why so few refs have applied it to the letter as was done today. It needs to be changed or else strictly adhered to... one or the other.

[Andy @ Allerton]

He was offside - the goal should NOT have stood. AWful decision.

[redjersey]

New International FA Board Decision 2

 

The definitions of elements of involvement in active play are as follows:

 

* Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team mate.

 

* Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent?s line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.

 

* Gaining an advantage by being in that position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or the crossbar having been in an offside position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.

Was offside according to that rule.

 

But Cisse didn't prevent an opponent from playing the ball when he cocked his leg at it, and I can't see how he deceived or distracted any of the Blackburn defenders either. So the lino and ref got it right. GOAL.

[libero]

Off course he was offside.

 

Do I care??

 

Not a jot.

 

The ref and his two assistant were very poor today what with the goal, a few dodgy decisions from the ref and the two offsides in the second half when Cisse was in his own half when the ball was played.

 

What with those decisons and last weeks offside from a throw you would think they didnt know the rules or something

[George Costanza]

Off course he was offside.

 

Do I care??

 

Not a jot.

 

 

 

 

What he said.

 

 

We'd be f***ing livid if it happened to us. OR moaning if Dogpoo or Horseface did the same.

 

Blackburn can't complain too much after the goal they got against Wigan.

[Kahnee]

Granted I have the benefit of the replay, but Cisse twigged that if he touched the ball he'd be offiside and stopped himself. By not touching the ball, by the letter of the law he wasn't active.

 

The rules a stupid one, but under it he wasn't off

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Under the new rules, not offside & them's great rules. Today at least.

 

Yes, I'd be fuming if we'd lost to that goal, but that's the way it is these days. Cisse even did one of those rugby things where he put his hands up & didn't move.

 

BR were fuming coz they knew they'd fecked up by stopping

[Guest The Defender]

He was def offside.. the defenders stopped running and looked across when they saw cisse..

 

but on the other hand these kinds of decisions balance themselves out over the season..

 

There is a couple of times we where caught offside and never really where..

[Guest speker]

The offside law has often been contentious for as long as I've been watching football but the constant tinkering they've done has only made it even more difficult to get consistent decisions from the officials.

 

I think they deffo should have called Cisse off. The law needs to go back as it used to be, ie, if yer in an offside position then yer off, end of.

 

Keep it as simple as possible.

[Dominus Maximus]

ere

 

"Experts have struggled to explain these guidelines, with particular confusion surrounding the term 'active,' but on this occasion Cisse was clearly interfering with play, as Fowler intended his ball to go to him.

 

Without question the goal should have been discounted, as it would have been under the old rules, and the game could well have panned out differently."

 

Why is it when Ruud does it, no one mums a word. But we do it once and it reopens a debate?

Edited April 17, 2006 by Crouchinho

[Guest Sabre]

I think it's funny.

 

It makes me laugh.

[chrisbonnie]

Cisses` hands up reaction made me laugh, and my god it had my bird in stitchs, she even seen a replay again today and couldnt help herself, it was quite funny though, and probably the goal shouldnt have stood ,but f*** it, these things even themselves out

[Rimbeux]

It seems to me that 'everyone' goes on about it all the time in the media, especially when RvN does it at set pieces, but this is surely one of the most dubious interpretations so far.

[Guest Sabre]

I don't think the goal should have stood but the sooner something like this results in a rule returning to how it used to be the better

[Sir Tokyo Sexwale]

Cisses` hands up reaction made me laugh, and my god it had my bird in stitchs, she even seen a replay again today and couldnt help herself, it was quite funny though, and probably the goal shouldnt have stood ,but f*** it, these things even themselves out

see his face after it was given? He was having a good ol' chuckle to himself