Pratley's goal

[jmelanie]

The papers are saying his goal was also offside.

[West Acton]

What annoyed me was that Pratley was one foul away from a red. The Ref made that clear when he said to him no more and Bolton then took him off to keep a player on the pitch.

In my book the ref making it so obvious the next foul is a red is as good as cheating as he is influencing the game which he is not there too do. If Pratley cant control himself during the game (Ala Samba for us against Fulham) then they need to go off

Officials were shocking yesterday. The Mackie chance at the end was not even given as a corner then there was the pen not given appalling decisions all round

[swanleyhoop]

Wasn't the players who cost us yesterday.
Even with the poor defending, Pratley was offside and goal shouldn't have stood.
There were a number of other occasions which the ref just didn't see, or want to know about.
The taking out of Anton on the halfway line, where he waved play on and then gave Bolton a free kick up the other end for an identical foul was one which I haven't seen mentioned, but was particularly nasty, and meant we had to defend a free kick into our box without AF as he was then off getting treatment.
The 'goal'. the 2 penalty shouts at the end, the corner off of Mackie's shot...just the tip of the iceberg which left us so frustrated at the end...but NOT with the team.

[Stanley]

When the initial pass to the wide man was played Pratley and another player were clearly offside, then they moved to an onside position before the cross was hit.

Can someone please explain how they were not 'interfering with play' for the first pass?

[Del]

He was not offside under the rules, but its a perfect example why the current offside rule is a joke.

He was off when the ball was played to their wide player and 2 yards goalside of our defence, yet on when the person crossed it for the "2nd phase" or whatever the rule refers to, hence it stood. The fact he got an advantage over the defenders as a result is apparently irrelevant to the rule makers.

[Rebel R's]

Well I suppose our goal was too

[Stanley]

The fact he got an advantage over the defenders as a result is apparently irrelevant to the rule makers.

Which is surely "interfering with play" which breaks the farce of a rule.

[swanleyhoop]

Well I suppose our goal was too

Cancel out ours and their goal for offside, and allow Hill's goal, that leaves the score at 1-1.
But, give Hill's goal which would make it 1-0 to us, crowd get on Bolton's back, Bolton's nerve goes, we win 1-0.
And as for the penalty shouts at the end -- could have given us a late winner anyway.
Hate ifs and buts.

[dave58]

No need to try and find excusses defencively we are poor

[Rsonist]

Yeah, ou'd be giving our defenders far too much credit if you think they were stood working out whether Pratley was 1st or 2nd phase offside. They fell asleep pure and simple.

Del is spot on regarding how idiotic the rules are though.

[Del]

Which is surely "interfering with play" which breaks the farce of a rule.

It is a joke but that's the ruling.

Remember in WC 94 when they introduced the change (I think) there was a shocker where Brazil took advantage against Holland I think. Romario was bout 20 yards offside in the middle of the pitch as Holland defenders pushed up to hakf way, a ball was played down Brazils left and then he squared it to Romario to tap in with the defence calling for offside. It was embarrasing but because he was "onside" when passed the ball it was ok, even though at all stages he was miles behind Hollands defence.

[BUSHRANGER1982]

No need to try and find excusses defencively we are poor

Sadly, we are, very poor.
We are now leaving well behind, our previous record in the premiership for conceding goals in consecutive games, and with the games coming right up, it will be nothing short of miraculous if we keep a single clean sheet between now and the end of April.
Once the ball enters our last third, my confidence in our ability to see off any theats just evaporates.

[Stanley]

It is a joke but that's the ruling.

Remember in WC 94 when they introduced the change (I think) there was a shocker where Brazil took advantage against Holland I think. Romario was bout 20 yards offside in the middle of the pitch as Holland defenders pushed up to hakf way, a ball was played down Brazils left and then he squared it to Romario to tap in with the defence calling for offside. It was embarrasing but because he was "onside" when passed the ball it was ok, even though at all stages he was miles behind Hollands defence.

As long as a player is anywhere on the pitch he is "interfering with play", for the simple reason that it will have an inevitable influence on where other players will position themselves.

That muddled wording makes a total mockery of the offside law.

[Golborne]

He was not offside under the rules, but its a perfect example why the current offside rule is a joke.

He was off when the ball was played to their wide player and 2 yards goalside of our defence, yet on when the person crossed it for the "2nd phase" or whatever the rule refers to, hence it stood. The fact he got an advantage over the defenders as a result is apparently irrelevant to the rule makers.

I Sky+ it and if you freeze the picture when the cross left the boot of the wide player, he's actually still slightly off side (about 1/2 yard). By the time he actually heads it we have players goal side, but not when the cross (that was forward moving) came in.

Have to say I thought Barton and SWP passing etc was awful, but both covered a lot of ground and I wouldn't be pointing a finger at their commitment. More at their actual natural ability (Barton) and confidence (SWP). Shut Barton up, put him on £20k a week and people may see his performances in a different light. He often mops up well when the defence are under pressure, but that's his game - I've never seen him do anything other than that for his whole career, bar the cracker from distance. The gob and the salary make us all expect more from an average prem player, who happens to be struggling for form..

[jmelanie]

Yes but if he was offside and our goal was offside and the goal that we got had counted then it should at least be a drawer (and if we had got the goal which did not count then maybe we would have won).