hutch Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 I suspect there are thousands of fans everywhere saying a little prayer. Please God, not us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Martinez Sacked. CHDAJFU? (Only joking) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Anyone know why Stoke are way out at 3.50 at home to West Ham at the weekend? Hammers are even money to get the win there...I'd personally have been a little more hopeful that they'd face a tougher task getting a win at the Britannia than the bookies seem to be suggesting. Injuries? Or is it a case of the bookies just thinking the difference in motivation makes all the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Garrett Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Anyone know why Stoke are way out at 3.50 at home to West Ham at the weekend? Hammers are even money to get the win there...I'd personally have been a little more hopeful that they'd face a tougher task getting a win at the Britannia than the bookies seem to be suggesting. Injuries? Or is it a case of the bookies just thinking the difference in motivation makes all the difference? Stoke have been awful for the last 2 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Anyone know why Stoke are way out at 3.50 at home to West Ham at the weekend? Hammers are even money to get the win there...I'd personally have been a little more hopeful that they'd face a tougher task getting a win at the Britannia than the bookies seem to be suggesting. Injuries? Or is it a case of the bookies just thinking the difference in motivation makes all the difference? Odds are adjusted to reflect betting patterns. All meticulously updated to attract as many punters as possible, whilst paying out the minimum possible if the result comes in. In other words, there's probably quite a lot being lumped on West Ham to get something, so they can afford to offer longer odds on a Stoke win, knowing they still make a profit if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Poopey/Plymouth is a bit tasty at the moment after 12 mins. 1-1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shroppie Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Poopey/Plymouth is a bit tasty at the moment after 12 mins. 1-1 1-2 now. ???? Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Not sure I have "supported" so many different teams in a week (inc. Stoke and Bournemouth on Sunday)!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VectisSaint Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Anyone know why Stoke are way out at 3.50 at home to West Ham at the weekend? Hammers are even money to get the win there...I'd personally have been a little more hopeful that they'd face a tougher task getting a win at the Britannia than the bookies seem to be suggesting. Injuries? Or is it a case of the bookies just thinking the difference in motivation makes all the difference? Stoke have been rubbish since Butland got injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintoaks Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Paul Wooton gets sent off after a barny with the skate manager who also got sent off.. Just remember tho, they've got the best fans in the league S****s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 They beat WBA by 1 or 2 goals and we draw with Palace? Doesn't sound so unlikely to me. In fact I would say it was the second most likely outcome after a win for both of us. It's less likely than a lot of the other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shurlock Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 It's less likely than a lot of the other options. You still banging on about this, pal. Don't do a MLG. You got it wrong. Move on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 His movement is covered in the Laws Of The Game: Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision or movement. Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. It's here: http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2015-16/jul/290715-international-fa-board-offside-guidance.html This is the relevant bit: 2. 'Makes an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball' The second part of the guidance has two elements and both an obvious action and impact are necessary for an offside offence to be penalised. Match officials will have to consider whether an obvious action by an attacking player in an offside position means that the opponent would need to delay his action to wait and see if the attacking player in an offside position touches or plays the ball, and/or, the opponent's movement or ball-playing options are clearly restricted by the movement and/or actions of the attacking player in an offside position. Kane being in an offside position meant the defenders AND Forster had to see if he played the ball, and it made all the difference in the world to Forster getting out to Son quick enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 His movement is covered in the Laws Of The Game: Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball. For example, by clearly obstructing the goalkeeper’s line of vision or movement. Making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent. This was the definition until last year's re-interpretation clarified what constitutes the last bit - which is what Kane's position and movement did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 Sorry to pick this up a bit late but discussed this on the Spurs Post-Match thread. Interfering with play isn't mentioned in FIFA's off-side interpretation, only 'interfering with an opponent' or 'gaining an advantage'. Kane wasn't penalised as he did neither of those things and it was Son who gained the advantage. It could be an unintended consequence of the interpretation but unless FIFA change it, that's how it is. Even neutrals might feel that the Spurs goal was unfair because Kane's presence in the area affected how the Saints defenders and GK behaved but as the rule stands no offence was committed. FIFA did change it (actually the IFAB did) and as usual you're talking cobblers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 May, 2016 Share Posted 12 May, 2016 This was the definition until last year's re-interpretation clarified what constitutes the last bit - which is what Kane's position and movement did. To be honest I took it from the FIFA site but these days you never know how old the page is. I prefer the old-fashioned ruling, unless the player's lying in an offside position on the ground with a broken leg then flag him for offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ohio Saint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Even neutrals might feel that the Spurs goal was unfair because Kane's presence in the area affected how the Saints defenders and GK behaved but as the rule stands no offence was committed. Little known made-up fact: The offside rule was written by the same ambiguous twonks that wrote the American constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Professor Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 FIFA did change it (actually the IFAB did) and as usual you're talking cobblers. Before you add abuse to a comment you should make sure you are correct because if you think Kane should have been penalised you would have to point out the "obvious action" Kane took to cause the defenders to delay. That they did delay was apparant, but if that was merely because of his presence and not because of an obvious action it is still not an offence. So unless you can point out the action it would seem you would be wrong in thinking Kane should have been penalised. But if you are wrong don't get too upset about it. It's only football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Before you add abuse to a comment you should make sure you are correct because if you think Kane should have been penalised you would have to point out the "obvious action" Kane took to cause the defenders to delay. That they did delay was apparant, but if that was merely because of his presence and not because of an obvious action it is still not an offence. So unless you can point out the action it would seem you would be wrong in thinking Kane should have been penalised. But if you are wrong don't get too upset about it. It's only football. FF and the defenders had no idea that Kane was offside, or rather would have been given offside had he collected the ball, so had to play as if he wasn't. And we all know that he was going towards the ball and ended up letting it run about a yard in front of him which kept the defence/FF where they were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandwichsaint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Maybe the ref/lino did take all this into account and decided that Forster hadn't been disadvantaged? He clearly had time to get himself into a position where he could have gone down with his hands and collected the ball a stride ahead of Son. The fact that he was caught in several minds and didn't do much of anything isn't really any fault of the ref, or of Kane (unless Forster could prove that his failure to make a fairly routine-but-brave piece of goal keeping was that Kane had got in his head). I thought it was a goal, and I'd be unhappy if we had a similar one chalked off on Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 After the initial pain it was a bloody great few years, and dare I say more than worth it to be where we are now. It was three years of pain that still hurts. Incidentally hope began for me when Kelvin rejected a Premiership football contract to stay with Saints, even though players weren't getting paid at the time, before Marcus saved us. Well done Kelv. You deserve a testimonial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 (edited) Before you add abuse to a comment you should make sure you are correct because if you think Kane should have been penalised you would have to point out the "obvious action" Kane took to cause the defenders to delay. That they did delay was apparant, but if that was merely because of his presence and not because of an obvious action it is still not an offence. So unless you can point out the action it would seem you would be wrong in thinking Kane should have been penalised. But if you are wrong don't get too upset about it. It's only football. Actually if you read the interpretation it only needs to be an obvious action OR impeding a defender's ball-playing actions. Kane being in the offside position next to the ball did the latter, him moving towards the ball did the former. Also, if you think "you are talking cobblers" is an insult, you should try not talking cobblers. Edited 13 May, 2016 by The9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The9 Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 FF and the defenders had no idea that Kane was offside, or rather would have been given offside had he collected the ball, so had to play as if he wasn't. And we all know that he was going towards the ball and ended up letting it run about a yard in front of him which kept the defence/FF where they were. I'm pretty sure they knew he was in an offside position AND played as if he was going to be given offside, which absolutely affected their play and is precisely the reason they introduced the interpretation. The videos on the link I provided make it absolutely clear it was offside as they show exactly the same situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 I see the defenders slightly differently but that isn't relevant as it is the same result, so in agreement with you that it "absolutely affected their play". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secret Site Agent Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 So, in conclusion we need to beat palace, or draw and finish 7th, and United to win the FA cup and Liverpool to lose in the EL, or we finish 6th, with WHam losing and United to win the FA cup, and Liverpool win the EL or we finish 6th and Liverpool don’t win in the EL final, and Luke Skywalker defeats Kylo Ren, and Jason Finds the golden fleece, and ET gets to phone home, and Katie Price doesn’t win the lottery, and Labour replace Jeremy Corbin with a cardboard cut out, and I am sparticus, and Ron doesn’t find out about Harry Potter and Hermione, and the time it takes to fall 3m is 0.56 second, and the increased relativistic mass of a body is equal to the kinetic energy of motion of a body divided by the speed of light squared, and I think, therefore I am, plus the great white bear, Wakun Tatunka casts his seed over the good land, not forgetting that if you get your tokens from the pay box, there is no waiting.........we get European football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hutch Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 So, in conclusion we need to beat palace, or draw and finish 7th, and United to win the FA cup and Liverpool to lose in the EL, or we finish 6th, with WHam losing and United to win the FA cup, and Liverpool win the EL or we finish 6th and Liverpool don’t win in the EL final, and Luke Skywalker defeats Kylo Ren, and Jason Finds the golden fleece, and ET gets to phone home, and Katie Price doesn’t win the lottery, and Labour replace Jeremy Corbin with a cardboard cut out, and I am sparticus, and Ron doesn’t find out about Harry Potter and Hermione, and the time it takes to fall 3m is 0.56 second, and the increased relativistic mass of a body is equal to the kinetic energy of motion of a body divided by the speed of light squared, and I think, therefore I am, plus the great white bear, Wakun Tatunka casts his seed over the good land, not forgetting that if you get your tokens from the pay box, there is no waiting.........we get European football? But what if we finish eighth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eelpie Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 But what if we finish eighth? Meltdown Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Just watching the Sheff Weds v Brighton game (relevant to Saints because we could be playing one of them next season) and its an absolutely cracking match so far. Wednesday had the more possession and chances but Brighton hit the post from a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Sheffield Wednesday wow. Wtf from the lino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 ruled out goal for off side when it was him coming back from an offside position. Think it a tad harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 ruled out goal for off side when it was him coming back from an offside position. Think it a tad harsh. He's a mile offside when the keeper kicks the ball. Good call from the referee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Yes, but was he interfering with play? That's the problem with this damned rule - it is open to interpretation. I personally (was only half watching) didn't think he did interfere with play, not like Kane against us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saints foreva Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Yes, but was he interfering with play? That's the problem with this damned rule - it is open to interpretation. I personally (was only half watching) didn't think he did interfere with play, not like Kane against us. I don't think the Wednesday player gets a flick onto it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 I don't think the Wednesday player gets a flick onto it. That's what caused the delayed decision but it was correct, he was miles offside. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 I don't think the Wednesday player gets a flick onto it. Ah ha. Didn't actually consider that bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 ruled out goal for off side when it was him coming back from an offside position. Think it a tad harsh. Right call - even if it was late. Hooper didn't get a touch and Forestieri was a mile offside when the ball was kicked by the keeper. Reminds me of a goal we conceded at Newcastle a couple of years ago, but that time the officials missed it and the goal stood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Yeah, have to say, respect to the officials for that one. Was a difficult decision to get right there, and they did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_D Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 What a goal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Wednesday by far the better team so far. Brighton will be gutted if they lose the tie though, seeing as they finished 15 points higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nta786 Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Sheffield Wednesday wow. Wtf from the lino. Ah my mates a mug lol Lino got the decision right having seen the 'disallowed' goal again. It is unlucky, but right decision. And then Ross Wallace what a goal- he had to get that perfect- it wouldve been tad selfish if he missed ngl cos wednesday were in a good position there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Brighton down to 10. 4 injuries. And half an hour to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Oh dear. Brighton have already used all 3 subs and now knockaert is stretchered off. And its not down to dirty play from Wednesday either. Damage limitation for them now surely? If they can keep the score at 1-0 going into the Amex leg they might still have a decent chance of making the final. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Oh dear. Brighton have already used all 3 subs and now knockaert is stretchered off. And its not down to dirty play from Wednesday either. Damage limitation for them now surely? If they can keep the score at 1-0 going into the Amex leg they might still have a decent chance of making the final. 3 days is not very long to get fit again. That's the lottery that is the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 3 days is not very long to get fit again. That's the lottery that is the playoffs. Yeah but at least they can start the second leg with 11 men on the pitch. 2-0 now. Not looking good for Brighton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lickierambert Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Even with their injured/suspended players, how were Brighton nearly automatically promoted? Would be cannon fodder in the prem if they went up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crab Lungs Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Such a shame. Poor old Brighton. Not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelman Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 Even with their injured/suspended players, how were Brighton nearly automatically promoted? Would be cannon fodder in the prem if they went up Cannon fodder like Bournemouth?? I would have liked the South Coast to be better represented in the PL. Us, B'mouth, Brighton. Maybe Plymouth, Exeter and Yeovil too - OK that's pushing it a bit, but would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Munster Posted 13 May, 2016 Share Posted 13 May, 2016 So, in conclusion we need to beat palace, or draw and finish 7th, and United to win the FA cup and Liverpool to lose in the EL, or we finish 6th, with WHam losing and United to win the FA cup, and Liverpool win the EL or we finish 6th and Liverpool don’t win in the EL final, and Luke Skywalker defeats Kylo Ren, and Jason Finds the golden fleece, and ET gets to phone home, and Katie Price doesn’t win the lottery, and Labour replace Jeremy Corbin with a cardboard cut out, and I am sparticus, and Ron doesn’t find out about Harry Potter and Hermione, and the time it takes to fall 3m is 0.56 second, and the increased relativistic mass of a body is equal to the kinetic energy of motion of a body divided by the speed of light squared, and I think, therefore I am, plus the great white bear, Wakun Tatunka casts his seed over the good land, not forgetting that if you get your tokens from the pay box, there is no waiting.........we get European football? Liverpool winning the EL has no effect on our qualification. The rest is spot on though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint Charlie Posted 14 May, 2016 Share Posted 14 May, 2016 Payet apparently missing for WH with a knock. Would certainly help even if he hasn't been quite as good lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScepticalStan Posted 14 May, 2016 Share Posted 14 May, 2016 Payet apparently missing for WH with a knock. Would certainly help even if he hasn't been quite as good lately. I'd still be genuinely very surprised if they win at Stoke. I'm normally as pessimistic a fan as they come but I strongly, strongly believe we'll get 6th tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now