goals from millwall

[redscot]

FFS - Reading World is £35 a year.

Just fcuking well pay for it you tight wad.

Good to have someone on a white horse telling the rest of us what to do! (But what about those that watch Reading on the web without paying a fee to Sky etc.? Are they also "tight wads?")

[Royal With Cheese]

FFS - Reading World is £35 a year.

Just fcuking well pay for it you tight wad.

Good to have someone on a white horse telling the rest of us what to do! (But what about those that watch Reading on the web without paying a fee to Sky etc.? Are they also "tight wads?")

There's a huge difference in paying £35 a year and having to fork out £600 per year to see 4 or 5 Reading games on sky.

So, the answer to your question is, no, they're not tight wads.

[Terminal Boardom]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_AMgFd3N5s

and a big LOLz to ALF who clearly thinks he is offside before celebrating!

He was offside twice in the same move

Once, for the original through ball and again when Roberts passed to him.

I am, frankly, amazed that no more was made of it since ALF never got himself back onside at all before scoring.

Just watched it again on iPlayer and he is most definitely offside when Roberts plays the ball in

He was, at worst, level with Roberts when it was played across so not offside. He was not in front of the ball as it was played.

[TBM]

He was, at worst, level with Roberts when it was played across so not offside. He was not in front of the ball as it was played.

[ZacNaloen]

Is there an optical illusion going on there that makes that link look like it isn't parallel with the pitch markins?

Sstill serves the point though. ALF is clearly behind Roberts.

[Maguire]

He's certainly further back than the end of Roberts' wanger

[TBM]

Is there an optical illusion going on there that makes that link look like it isn't parallel with the pitch markins?

Sstill serves the point though. ALF is clearly behind Roberts.

I drew the line along the line of the penalty area and then nudged it until in line with the ball

[ZacNaloen]

That would be a yes then

[Dare to Dr£am]

Is there an optical illusion going on there that makes that link look like it isn't parallel with the pitch markins?

Sstill serves the point though. ALF is clearly behind Roberts.

I drew the line along the line of the penalty area and then nudged it until in line with the ball

Why don't you just admit you did it slightly wrong? The line should be parallel, thus showing just how onside he was. What you've drawn is a wonky line that makes it look closer than it was...

#justsaying

[JC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_AMgFd3N5s

and a big LOLz to ALF who clearly thinks he is offside before celebrating!

He was offside twice in the same move

Once, for the original through ball and again when Roberts passed to him.

I am, frankly, amazed that no more was made of it since ALF never got himself back onside at all before scoring.

Just watched it again on iPlayer and he is most definitely offside when Roberts plays the ball in

He was, at worst, level with Roberts when it was played across so not offside. He was not in front of the ball as it was played.

Sorry you are wrong. Take a look at this. Scroll down a bit


http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk ... 53&start=1

[Terminal Boardom]

What I do agree with on the no-neck forum is that when a player is offside, he needs to play himself onside before taking further part in that passage of play. In Rugby Union it is simple. If a player is in front of the kicker, he has to wait for the kicker to run past and play nim onside, retreat to behind the kicker, or have a player who was behind the kicker run ahead and play team mates onside.

I detest the current law as it is too ambiguous. Wasn't Hull's goal this season one where a player was offside and moved towards the ball? Even though he didn't touch it, he did enough to cause confusion. Saturday wa an example where the law works - to an extent. Alf was played onside by Roberts breaking down the wing. The only cause for concern was whether or not Alf was in an offside position when Roberts passed. He wasn't as he was neither in front of the ball nor Roberts at the time the pass was made. Of course, had Roberts passed the ball slightly backwards, offside does not enter into the discussion.

[Isaac Hunt]

*pedant mode on*

Just to be quite clear - some of you keep referring to ALF being level/behind Roberts. It is where he is positioned in relation to the ball that matters (i.e. behind it or level) not his team mate.

*pedant mode off*

Clearly behind the ball when it was played across, therefore a goal.

[Dare to Dr£am]

Sorry you are wrong. Take a look at this. Scroll down a bit


http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk ... 53&start=1

The general feeling on there is that in that photo Le Fondre is ONSIDE. It's before that that they feel he should have been flagged for interfering with play.

[Maguire]

I think the officials got it absolutely right HOWEVER I do have sympathy with the Millwall fans in terms of the original onside decision. We'd all be annoyed if it happened to us and it's just one of those situations where the laws of the game enable a goal to be scored which seems unfair.

It's nothing new though - this has been going on for years and years.

[JC]

Sorry you are wrong. Take a look at this. Scroll down a bit


http://www.millwall.vitalfootball.co.uk ... 53&start=1

The general feeling on there is that in that photo Le Fondre is ONSIDE. It's before that that they feel he should have been flagged for interfering with play.

That is what the new interpretation of the law is all about. He was not offside according to the current interpretation.
I am not quite so sure about the one we conceded to Hull because I felt that the player was interfering with play in as much as Federici was forced to cover that player tereby opening up the way for the other player to score. it is only slightly different though, so I suppose if we want to claim Millwall we probably have to concede Hull

[Isaac Hunt]

I think the officials got it absolutely right HOWEVER I do have sympathy with the Millwall fans in terms of the original onside decision. We'd all be annoyed if it happened to us and it's just one of those situations where the laws of the game enable a goal to be scored which seems unfair.

It's nothing new though - this has been going on for years and years.

^ This

[TBM]

Is there an optical illusion going on there that makes that link look like it isn't parallel with the pitch markins?

Sstill serves the point though. ALF is clearly behind Roberts.

I drew the line along the line of the penalty area and then nudged it until in line with the ball

Why don't you just admit you did it slightly wrong? The line should be parallel, thus showing just how onside he was. What you've drawn is a wonky line that makes it look closer than it was...

#justsaying

Drawn along the line, in red, layer copied and nudged

[ZacNaloen]

As I said, optical illusion

[Platypuss]

What I do agree with on the no-neck forum is that when a player is offside, he needs to play himself onside before taking further part in that passage of play. In Rugby Union it is simple. If a player is in front of the kicker, he has to wait for the kicker to run past and play nim onside, .

But that's exactly what le Fondre did...

[Ian Royal]

FFS - Reading World is £35 a year.

Just fcuking well pay for it you tight wad.

Good to have someone on a white horse telling the rest of us what to do! (But what about those that watch Reading on the web without paying a fee to Sky etc.? Are they also "tight wads?")

Are those people asking for someone to give them their paid for Reading World Log In details to get the same product for free? If so, tight wads is apt. If not, no they aren't.