Mike Cheating f*** pig Dean

[stanistheman]

Quite possibly the worst conceived rule in football today ! Really don't understand how this was anything but a goal, Keeper ####s up and gives away a goal, quite simple really.......how and why does he get another chance ? Just doesn't make sense FIFA at their best.

True, if a penalty taker slips or stumbles touching the ball twice he doesn't get a 2nd chance or when a player takes a foul throw it goes to the opponents, so why does a goalkeeper get another try to kick the ball out?

[TBLOCKRANGER]

If should just be changed to if committed the sanction is a penalty rather than a retake.
The offence is relatively rare so such a sanction is proportionate.
Seems bizarre that Hart commits an offence, leading to us scoring but we are the ones penalised with the status quo being the sanction.
Alternately, the referee has a discretion to play on, but seeing the referee yesterday he would have used his discretion to award a goal for Man City

[nasser95]

If should just be changed to if committed the sanction is a penalty rather than a retake.
The offence is relatively rare so such a sanction is proportionate.
Seems bizarre that Hart commits an offence, leading to us scoring but we are the ones penalised with the status quo being the sanction.
Alternately, the referee has a discretion to play on, but seeing the referee yesterday he would have used his discretion to award a goal for Man City

Probably not a penalty but an Indirect Free Kick in the box would suffice. I do still believe that the rule is different for this situation and we should have been awarded the indirect free kick as I stated earlier.

[twranger]

to those disagreeing with the Hart incident, West Ham had a goal disallowed against us a few weeks back, with the ref enforcing that EXACT same rule. These things work both ways. No one seems to have picked up on that one!

Oh dear

*facepalm*

*ilovemycapri*

[Shepherds Mush]

That is the rule, and that has been the rule for at least 50 years! As others have said, the situation with Green was identical to the one with Hart - the ball was touched a second time before it left the area so the kick had to be retaken.

AS far as I remember, the one with Green was re-taken as Valencia wasn't 10 yards away.

[oldhoop]

FA rule 99

when the darling of the premier league is only a "little bit" offside and only handballs it a "little bit" the goal shall stand.

FA rule 100

when a player from a smaller team commits their first foul they shall instantly be Carded when a bigger team constantly fouls they shall be ignored for as long as possible

If only this wasn't true!!!!!

[TW7R]

Well, it was mentioned on MOTD and Lineker had rule 13 to hand and him and the pundits agreed it was exactly the same rule. They even showed the Wham goal. I suspect they know better than most "expert" fans.

I didn't say it was a different rule, I said it was a different scenario which it was. Wasn't rob green kicking the ball twice. The west ham player was in the box when he received the ball, and on top of all that, he wasn't 10 yards away either. Completely different Scenario. Gary Lineker and Phil neville also saw an offside and hand ball from Aguero but just laughed it off. They still know more than us so called experts who got it right when we said it was hand ball and offside?

[twranger]

I didn't say it was a different rule, I said it was a different scenario which it was. Wasn't rob green kicking the ball twice. The west ham player was in the box when he received the ball, and on top of all that, he wasn't 10 yards away either. Completely different Scenario. Gary Lineker and Phil neville also saw an offside and hand ball from Aguero but just laughed it off. They still know more than us so called experts who got it right when we said it was hand ball and offside?

OK, a different scenario where the same rule applies then.
The offside and handball were debatable imo, and could have gone either way....in this instance, as always, the bigger team gets the benefit of the doubt. If the same thing had happened say involving Charlie, how many on here would be saying definite hand ball and offside. Not many, they'd be laughing it off.

[West Acton]

The offside and handball were debatable imo,

They really were not they were not it was clearly offside and it hit his hand but accept you say in your opinion

[QPRDave]

They really were not they were not it was clearly offside and it hit his hand but accept you say in your opinion

No they were not. Player is onside if level, nothing more to be said.

[stationcafe]

If any part of the player's body that they can score with (ie. anything other than arm or hand) is further than the last defender then it's offside. Aguero was 100% offside. And regardless of how good his control was, if the ball hadn't bounced off his arm he wouldn't have been able to score as he did. Which means the goal is a bit of a pisstake tbh.

Imagine if a foreign team scored a goal like that against an English side in the CL, the media would be banging on about it all week. Double standards but nothing new.

[twranger]

They really were not they were not it was clearly offside and it hit his hand but accept you say in your opinion

Cheers wests.

[nasser95]

No they were not. Player is onside if level, nothing more to be said.

Wasn't level, was completely offside, whole body as shown on MOTD. Handball was clearly with intent as he guided the ball to his feet

[Quaz]

i wonder if hart would have shouted double touch if charlie had missed.

[DeepcutHoop]

i wonder if hart would have shouted double touch if charlie had missed.

He was shouting for it from the moment it left his foot towards Austin.

If it had gone towards his own player, probably not. Would we have cared?