*****Official Match Thread v QPR*****

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, lake district canary said:

It's relatively simple, he was in an offside position as Pukki ran through, so he had to get back behind a defender before going again.

No he doesn't, he has to get onside again. By getting behind the ball he got onside. 

Why are people struggling with this? You'd rather make stuff up than admit you're wrong. Have I fallen into the Brexit thread? 

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's relatively simple, he was in an offside position as Pukki ran through, so he had to get back behind a defender before going again.

No, by being behind Pukki he's got himself onside, it's relatively simple 😉

Edited December 29, 2020 by Ken Hairy

[kick it off 1,952]

Just now, ricardo said:

Er no, surely to get back onside it has to be behind an opponent. 

No. That has never been the rule. If you're behind the ball then you can't be offside.

[Ian 1,129]

2 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's relatively simple, he was in an offside position as Pukki ran through, so he had to get back behind a defender before going again.

Nope, not an offence to be offside if he isn't active.

[Fuzzar 1,702]

2 minutes ago, Kenny Foggo said:

Krul and Gibson needed asap. Zimmerman has been poor since his West Ham injury.

He hasn't been the same player since Haller crocked him. 

And simply not mobile enough for the league above, if we go up. 

[Ian 1,129]

2 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Er no, surely to get back onside it has to be behind an opponent. 

Not sure if this is a wind up Ricardo?

[ricardo 7,395]

Suely he had already gained an advantage by being offside from the initial pass and so is active.

[Well b back 3,215]

3 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

It's relatively simple, he was in an offside position as Pukki ran through, so he had to get back behind a defender before going again.

No he didn’t he was behind the ball when Pukki played it so therefore could not have been offside. 

[Fuzzar 1,702]

Just now, ricardo said:

Suely he had already gained an advantage by being offside from the initial pass and so is active.

Incorrect, see previous replies. 

[kirku 1,334]

Just now, ricardo said:

Suely he had already gained an advantage by being offside from the initial pass and so is active.

That's not at all how the rule works

[kick it off 1,952]

Just now, ricardo said:

Suely he had already gained an advantage by being offside from the initial pass and so is active.

But that's irrelevant because that rule has been changed several years ago?

[Hank shoots Skyler 2,094]

 

On the Cantwell offside, just see the Hugill goal here, at 2:51. 

The exact same situation is not given as offside, Hugill only becomes active again when the cross comes in, the first ball over the top is clearly shown to be irrelevant (rightly or wrongly). 

So the offside was given for Pukki's pass not the first ball to Pukki.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Hank shoots Skyler

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

Just now, ricardo said:

Suely he had already gained an advantage by being offside from the initial pass and so is active.

Nope, that's not the rule, he has got himself onside by being behind Pukki 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

3 minutes ago, ricardo said:

Er no, surely to get back onside it has to be behind an opponent. 

Surely he was onside when the ball was played. Which he was. Unless by being onside he was offside. 🙃

[CDMullins 436]

4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

This reminds me generally of several (actually many) games early last season. Looked pretty, good in possession but little or no end result.

Too slow and pedantic in attack. Gives the opposition time to get organised and pack the defense and then we seem to want to walk the ball into the net.

Yeah but that was against Man U, Arsenal and Spurs, 

 

Not QPR, Birmingham and Rotherham. 

 

[ricardo 7,395]

Just now, nutty nigel said:

Surely he was onside when the ball was played. Which he was. Unless by being onside he was offside. 🙃

If only we had someone who could draw lines on the pitch then it would all be easy😉

[canarydan23 4,060]

1 minute ago, nutty nigel said:

Surely he was onside when the ball was played. Which he was. Unless by being onside he was offside. 🙃

Don't confuse him more than he already is. Poor old boy. 

[sonyc 5,526]

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

Our pen was soft. Thought our other possible ones were 50/50 at best. Our offside 'goal' was v close - tough one to call from the angle shown.

Still top though but need to beat Barnsley and get back into the winning habit asap.

OTBC

[canarydan23 4,060]

Just now, ricardo said:

If only we had someone who could draw lines on the pitch then it would all be easy😉

I'd settle for people just knowing the rules. 

[Ian 1,129]

Where was the free kick given for the offside? If it wasn't where Cantwell was standing initially, the discussion over what constitutes an offside in totally irrelevant.

I believe it was taken from where Cantwell scored from, therefore the assistant has made a total cockup that likely cost us 2 points.

[Ken Hairy 3,773]

Regardless of anything that may have happened before, this cannot be offside, its that simple. 

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Just now, ricardo said:

If only we had someone who could draw lines on the pitch then it would all be easy😉

We really don't. 

This tv football experience is enough to drive a man to Corrie.🙃

Here's a scary thought...

Next time we get to a game we could be back in the land of VAR.

[kick it off 1,952]

Anyway, now we have cleared up the offside rule - my take on the game is simple.

Powder puff tackle from Vrancic cost us big time.

Both penalties were incredibly soft.

Ref was a c**t. Linesman an incompetent c**t.

Somebody needs to take a f**king shot once in a while.

Gibson needs to come in for Zimbo ASAP.

Quintilla also desperately needed to stretch the game. We're too predictable and teams have sussed us. Shut down Max and shove every available body in the middle of the park to clog it up and prevent the killer balls from Buendia and Vrancic. Quintilla gives us an additional dimension and creates room for others to operate more efficiently. Lungi has done an admirable job as stand-in but we really need a more natural full back in that position. 

That's about it really. Not much else to say on tonight.

[Branston Pickle 3,661]

Good to see a totally irrelevant argument about the offside: it was given so it was offside.  Simple.  Whether it was right or not is irrelevant and not an excuse for not winning against a poor side we dominated.

[GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary 1,768]

2 minutes ago, Ken Hairy said:

Regardless of anything that may have happened before, this cannot be offside, its that simple. 

That isnt what the offside was given for...( I assume?)

[nutty nigel 7,537]

Just now, Branston Pickle said:

Good to see a totally irrelevant argument about the offside: it was given so it was offside.  Simple.  Whether it was right or not is irrelevant and not an excuse for not winning against a poor side we dominated.

Of course it's irrelevant. So is whining about us not beating a poor side. 

 

[Ian 1,129]

Just now, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

That isnt what the offside was given for...( I assume?)

As I said, where was the free kick actually awarded? Should straighten out why it was given fairly unequivocally.

 

[Disco Dales Jockstrap 1,891]

5 minutes ago, canarydan23 said:

Don't confuse him more than he already is. Poor old boy. 

No need to be a patronising tw8t now is there Dan?

OTBC

[canarydan23 4,060]

2 minutes ago, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

That isnt what the offside was given for...( I assume?)

It was. Embarrassing for the lino. Or corrupt.