Gouffran is standing in an offside position, the officials gave offside. Obviously they saw it as interfering with play. To show that he’s not interfering with play, Gouffran should of been running away from goal. Deciding if the goalkeeper could make the save is irrelevant.

What relevance has running away from goal got to do with anything? He could be running towards goal and still not be interfering with play.

If Gouffran is not making an effort to get back onside, why should he get the benefit of the doubt?

If Gouffran’s not making an effort to get back onside, why should he get the benefit of the doubt?

I give up. You haven’t a clue mate.

Can you explain how Gouffran is not interfering with play? He’s not injured, he’s not making an effort to get back onside. He’s standing right in front of the goal.

Gouffran is not interfering with play because his being there is completely irrelevant to the scoring of the goal, if he was not in the position he was the goal would still have been scored, he had absolutely nothing to do with that ball going into the back of the net, whether by interfering with the opposition or the flight of the ball hence he was not interfering with play.

How is it completely irrelevant to the scoring of the goal? Gouffran is in the six yard box next to the goalkeeper. He had to move out of the way of the ball as it went towards goal.

He didn’t touch the ball and wasn’t near the keepers line of sight or any defenders who may have blocked it, if he wasn’t there the ball would have gone into the net in exactly the same fashion as it did which makes his being there completely irrelevant. Newcastle gained absolutely no advantage from him being in the six yard box and Man City gained no disadvantage therefore he did not interfere with play.

Gouffran is in the way of Joe Hart. That’s a disadvantage for Man City and an advantage for Newcastle.

Can you explain how being on the other side of the 6 yard box, completely out of the line of sight between where the ball was struck and Joe Hart in anyway interferes with the keepers ability to save the shot. If you have watched that incident more than once and are still of the opinion that Gouffran is in anyway impeding Joe Hart well then I’m afraid you seriously need to consider your ability to look at these kind of situations objectively.

Joe Hart can’t commit to stop the shot because he doesn’t know if Gouffran is going to flick the ball in or leave it.

I wouldn’t waste your breath any further Sean. I thought this guy was an idiot earlier, now I think he must be trolling.

@ Mark Stewart. All I’ve done is provided a counterpoint to your argument. That’s hardly trolling. There’s no need for childish name calling.

You’re clutching at straws, Gouffran being in an offside position means that if he had of flicked the ball he would have interfered with play and would have been correctly ruled offside so I can assure you Joe Hart would not be likely to allow that to prevent him from making the save, it was simply just a well struck shot to the corner which the keeper didn’t have a chance of saving, you see it all the time when a strike like that goes in the keepers are often just standing watching it go in, nothing to do with him feeling like he couldn’t commit he was just beaten by a very good shot.

The officials don’t have to decide if Hart can save the shot. The position that Gouffran has taken means Hart can’t even attempt to dive for it. Gouffran doesn’t have to touch the ball to interfere with play. Being in the way of Joe Hart is how he’s interfering with play.

I never mentioned anything about officials determining if Joe Hart could save it or not so I don’t understand the relevance of that, I merely stated that him standing still had nothing to do with a fear to commit and more to do with him being beaten by a well struck shot, this was in reply to your comment about him being afraid to commit himself which is extremely unlikely as Gouffran couldn’t touch the ball as he was in an offside position, so Joe Hart as an experienced goalkeeper would be well aware to play the ball and not waste his time thinking about the player who can’t touch the ball. I have been over it numerous times now and its plain to see Gouffran had no impact on the situation given the position he was in and should have been deemed as not interfering with play because of this, the goal would have been scored in exactly the same way had he been at the order end of the pitch. I will now take Marks advice and stop wasting my breath, as we appear to be on the verge of constantly repeating ourselves.

Clearly Mark Stewart and Sean don’t know the rules of the game and are making things up as they go along. Number 1:Gouffran is in an offside position. Number: 2 Gouffran is standing directly in front of the path the ball and had to duck to stop it hitting him, therefore he is interfering with play. That’s all that’s required for the officials to give offside. Saying that Gouffran didn’t touch the ball is irrelevant, he’s still interfering with play. Saying that Hart wouldn’t of saved the shot is also irrelevant. Gouffran is still in Hart’s way while in an offside position. Stating that Hart must determined if a player is offside or not in order to act is the most moronic point. Hart has to protect his goal first instead of waiting for a decision from officials. Otherwise he would look very foolish. It’s up to the officials to give offside not Joe Hart.

Specsavers come to mind.

Of course Hart can commit to saving the ball, in the knowledge that Gouffran is in an offside position if he decides to touch the ball. Perfectly good goal.

Your a goalie, isn’t most of ur best stuff caught out of the corner if your eye? The fact that the striker as you say had to get out of the way of the shot, isn’t that an action, isn’t that interfering with play , he definitely was on harts radar, moving to avoid getting his head removed, and too lazy and dopey to get back onside, I think ’twas a great decision.