how offside was horsefield yesterday

[alex field 0]

anybody else notice that horsefiled was 3 or 4 yards offside against the scummers? Why didn''t the lino flag, surely interferring with play, i.e scoring in the forth minute of injury time.

I would be gutted if we missed out on the championship by 1 or 2 points.

[mistersparkle 0]

maybe but the second ipswich goal shouldnt have counted either - clear foul on the baggies goalkeeper.

it''s all swings and roundabouts.

i''ve still not seen the infringment BFJ was going on about for the first baggies goal. looked ok to me.

[Yellow Jem 0]

I agree he was a mile offisde. Shame they didn''t have the same lino that dissallowed two of our goals on Saturday which were clearly onside. However, I was there (not hoping for an Ipswich win but more for a Baggies defeat - I still can''t bring myself to want Ipswich to win ever!) and the binmen have only got themselves to blame for losing. For the last ten minutes they were only playing with 2 at the back and 4 in front of them. On two or three occassions they had Horsfield, Hughes and Koumas running at the back two and it seemed only a matter of time before they conceded again. Abject poor defending which is the reason why they have not been able to sustain any kind of a challenge. That and, of course, poor refereeing decisions the whole season through. After all, according to Fab and BFJ they are the best team in the division!!!!!!

[Hcuk 0]

The lineo didn''t flag cos, IMHO, the ball was going out to Lee Hughes on the wing and Horsfield was running through the middle. I guess that the lineo thought that he wasn''t interfering with play in the ''first phase'' ie as the ball was passed to Hughes but was then behind Hughes in the ''second phase'', as the ball was crossed to Horsfield for him to slot home.

Just the way it looked to me. I initially though it was offside, but there was a pic on the sun website.

Chris

[Bring-on-Flecky 1]

A player is not offside if the ball is played backwards or the receiving player is behind
the player passing so I''m afraid Horsfields goal was ok. From what I saw Horsfield
was behind the player passing. Poor old Ips**h. Ha ha!

[Marty 0]

I think Horsfield was interfering with play since he was breathing down the keepers neck, and when the ball was passed to the horse he was about parallel with Hughes (who shouldn''t be playing in my opinion for obvious reasons), so all in all a lucky goal to be given. As for the I******h equaliser, It was fair to me, the keep had the chance to handle the ball but got his timing wrong and failed to make any contact prior to clashing with the forward, so often the ref will give the keeper the benefit of the doubt but it is a man sport!

[DumbleDelia is Magic 0]

I really don''t get this whole "first phase" "second phase" piece in the offside rule these days. Yes Horsefield was offside when it was played to Hughes. But how did the lino not know that Hughes was going to knock it in the net without the help of Horsefield? Then it would have been unfair to disallow the goal because Hughes was onside. When Hughes did play it across goal Horsefield was onside so who cares if he was onside or offside when it was originally played to Hughes? (Huh- Gasp for breath!) Am I making any sense?

[Making Plans 936]

Who cares if he was offside - if it upsets the Binners fans and BFJ so much the better . Anyway, we don''t need the Binners help ''cause we''re going to get promotion through our own efforts. I see BFJ was having another pop at us yesterday in the Mail - still thinks the Binners are the best team in the League. Surely, this blind belief has been the main reason for the Binners results lately. Afterall, what credibility can he have when he keeps sprouting this garbage - the players must be sitting there thinking "what an idiot, can''t he see that we''re crap"
Have a nice one

[If I had the wings of a sparrow 0]

I just thought the Horse won by a neck with the donkeys trailing him.