Livermore and Parker

[Lost Mango]

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

•interfering with play or
•interfering with an opponent or
•gaining an advantage by being in that position

Whether he gained an advantage or not the ball hit him whilst in play and he was in an offside position, therefore he was interfering with play and it is offside. If he had ran into the goal completely it should have stood but he didn't.

 

[Lost Mango]

Thats what I was thinking too. Parker was not gaining an advantage, nor was he obstructing or interfering with play as the ball was basically on the goal line when it deflected off him.

Ball touches him when it is still live means it is interfering with play. There is no room here for interpretation or intention or where on the pitch it happens. if you touch the ball it counts as being active or interfering with play. Unfortunate but crystal clear

 

[hydra]

The more I reflect on Sunday, the harder I find it to upset with the result of the match.

I think we lack a lot going forward with a central midfield of Parker-Livermore, and I think it really hurts us that we have no other deep-lying playmaker when Modric is out, considering how much our play revolves around him. With Huddlestone injured long term, we have no recognised 'passer' in CM, so when VdV is missing as well, our lack of incision is so evident.

However, on a pitch like Sunday's, our usual style of play is never going to work well. You only need to look at Barcelona's result on a brick pitch at Osasuna the other day to realise the extent that the passing game revolves around a decent playing surface. The 1-1 draw was an amazing result for Stevenage, and the extra cash from the replay will be a godsend. We will take them back to the lane and probably destroy them without difficulty. It's so much harder to play against lower-ranked opposition on occasions like this than people give them credit for. I think this limits the usefulness of drawing tactical conclusions for the future based on yesterday's game.

In saying that, it appears that we do need a new ball-player in Modric's mould. In my view, Carroll is a good prospect, but unlikely to be able to step into this role in the near future, probably needing a season at a lower-down Premiership side before he is ready to challenge for a place at Spurs. I would love to see Spurs take a punt on Milan Badelj as a potential solution to this problem.

 

[yiddo2786]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Parker was onside within the rules of the game, but that the rules are stupid in making that goal illegal.

 

[DHSF]

You cannot tell with absolute certainty whether the keeper could have save the original non-deflected shot or not. So credit is given to the offensive player unless it is absolutely certain that the original shot would not have gone in.

Regardless, you might be confusing the offside rule with crediting who the goal scorer is. The former is the law of the game while the latter is not.

Im not confusing the rule - basically you gotta be in it to win it.

You gotta be on the pitch to score a goal. You gotta be interfering with play to score a goal. Parker scored the goal, and not Saha, therefore Parker had been interfering with play. Its kinda that simple.