Dermot Gallagher on Ref watch

[MaidenheadMick]

Reckons both calls were correct. The moving ball was so minimal you'd need a microscope to see it so it would have been hard to spot. Mitrovic was clearly offside. Nothing like sticking up for the referees union.

[cmg]

He undermines his credibility (if any!) totally by supporting the second decision.
Wheras the first was a marginal judgement call (and may have been right) the second was merely a question of fact. The ball is either moving or it isn't. This one was was moving (immaterial that it was only moving a little bit) and therefore should have been retaken. The fact that it was moving meant that Liverpool were able to take advantage of a (too) quickly taken free-kick.

[nose returns]

Dermot was never on my list of good guys and if he thinks that was OK then he needs his integrity checking. the ball was moving, stevie wonder saw it too it was that obvious. the offside was too close to call. is dermot mark halsey in disguise, his comments are a disgrace.

[bog]

Bog off! I must have a microscope on each eye then.


092.gif

[deadcowboys]

Not sure Dermott the Dunce knew the rules when he was a ref so i have no expectatiin he does now. In any event whether the ball was moving or not & with 1 side half celebrating a goal, allowing a quick free kick to be taken is plain dumb.

[KJS]

Also he supports Liverpool

[Bill2]

Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.

On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.

[Vinnieffc]

Gallaghers first name is actually Rick, spelt  with a silent P.

[nose returns]

Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.

On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.

last time i read the rule it said that if any part of your body with which you can legally play the ball is in advance of the last defender (assuming the goalkeeper is the last player) then you are in an offside position. the slow motion and still picture is far too close to call so dermot is an idiot however you look at it and really that is all he needed say, that is was close, because actually, he can't know for 100% certain and when is a rolling ball a still ball? when dermot says so.

[toshes mate]

It may have been appropriate for Mr Gallagher to explain that the assistant's view of the offisde was conflicted by Schurrle crossing his sight line at the critical moment. The referee couldn't see the moving ball because his view was obstructed by a Liverpool player in his sight line (I have seen a view where he appears to try to look over the player's shoulder).  That means both decisions were about things the officials didn't see rather than did see.  Gallagher will be familiar with that.

[Bassey the warrior]

Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.

On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.

This is the thing. Are shoulder goals allowed? I can't think of an instance where they were. If they aren't then it's not offside.

[MikeTheCubed]

Wouldn't pay a shred of attention to anything Dermot Gallagher says after how he stitched us up away to Middlesbrough in 2002. Would recommend pressing mute any time he appears on your screen.

[alfie]

It may have been appropriate for Mr Gallagher to explain that the assistant's view of the offisde was conflicted by Schurrle crossing his sight line at the critical moment. The referee couldn't see the moving ball because his view was obstructed by a Liverpool player in his sight line (I have seen a view where he appears to try to look over the player's shoulder).  That means both decisions were about things the officials didn't see rather than did see.  Gallagher will be familiar with that.

I find this quite annoying, giving a decision that he did not see, if he didn't see it then he can't give it,  well that should be the case.

[bobbo]

Using that logic, Mitro was only a hairsbreadth offside and therefor should be allowed to stand, he certainly was not "clearly" offside hence the debate.

On MOTD2 they say you can be offside if any part of your body you can score with is beyond the last defender and it was reckoned it was Mitro's shoulder that was the offending item. Although I bet if he had scored with his shoulder the ref would have said it was handball.

last time i read the rule it said that if any part of your body with which you can legally play the ball is in advance of the last defender (assuming the goalkeeper is the last player) then you are in an offside position. the slow motion and still picture is far too close to call so dermot is an idiot however you look at it and really that is all he needed say, that is was close, because actually, he can't know for 100% certain and when is a rolling ball a still ball? when dermot says so.

to be deemed offside the player has o be deemed nearer to the opponent goal line than the bal and less than two players WHEN THE BALL IS PLAYED.
I accept the new decsion it has to be a scoreable part of the body.
Mitro looked level and in any event NOT nearer to the goal line than the opponents ,

[Carborundum]

Poor analysis from Mr Gallagher.  What he's done is create a false premise -that the ball was barely moving.  It was moving a lot.  Then he's suggested that barely moving is kind of OK.  It isn't it's against the rules.  Rules : the things referees are only there to uphold.

[filham]

You know I would love to see the whole incident again and to check that the ball for the free kick was actually on the spot where Mtrovic was offside.

[cmg]

You know I would love to see the whole incident again and to check that the ball for the free kick was actually on the spot where Mtrovic was offside.

Nowhere near.
O/S given well outside the 6yd box - kick taken well inside it.

Compare with fuss made over placement of a Rico goalkick earlier on.

[Statto]

As I've said before, if the top players are getting £300k+ per week then IMO so should the refs, because they influence the game at least as much and there should only be a handful, 10-15 of them doing the job at the highest level.

But the quid pro quo needs to be massively raising standards. 1,000s of young boys trying and failing to make it into refs academies every year, the best of them get identified at 10 or 12 years old and sponsored, spending their whole lives doing nothing but practising reffing, etc etc.

Then you would actually get people who are good at the job instead of these useless pillocks we have at the moment.

[Kiwimike]

I have only watched highlights of this game, being in Auckland NZ and no having TV access.  If we accept the decision that Mitro's shoulder put him offside, then could someone tell me which part of Salah was not offside when the ball was played to him?  I thought he was clearly 2-3 yards at least offside when the ball was played to him.

[bobbo]

Kiwimike , sorry mate to dissapoint you but despite the ball moving and the free kick taken in the wrong spot Salah was nowhere near offside.