Graham 'Mr Accuracy' Poll Would Have Given Huddlestone Goal

[White Noise]

Why Tom Huddlestone's goal rightly stood... if only Blackpool could benefit from such accuracy


By Graham Poll

Last updated at 10:47 AM on 18th October 2010


There are so many misconceptions about refereeing. At least one can be dispelled after Tottenham's controversial win at Fulham.

Mike Dean did not - as many including Mark Hughes claimed - fail to support his assistant Martin Yerby when Tom Huddlestone struck the winner in the 63rd minute at Craven Cottage.

The two officials followed protocol and came to the absolutely correct decision together - that the offside William Gallas was not interfering with play.

Delight: Tom Huddlestone (right) celebrates after Mike Dean signals that the goal stands
  It is impossible for an assistant to be absolutely sure if a player, who is in an offside position, is directly in the line of vision of the goalkeeper.

What complicated matters further was that Huddlestone's 30-yard strike took an audible deflection. Yerby, some 45 yards away, could not be sure who got the touch.

The offside law states that a player who is in an offside position, as Gallas clearly was, must either interfere with play or an opponent or gain an advantage from being in that position.
FIFA has defined that a player must actually play the ball to be deemed to be interfering with play and referee Dean, from his better position, knew the deflection was by Baird and so Gallas could not have interfered with play.

He also saw that Gallas was not in the line of goalkeeper Mark Schwarzer's vision and so was not, in FIFA's terms, interfering with an opponent.

After sensible consultation Dean and Yerby agreed that the goal was legal. It was Dean and Yerby's experience which led to this correct outcome and not pressure from players as also suggested.

What a pity that the same sense was not used at Bloomfield Road where a similar incident finished with a very different outcome for Ian Holloway's Blackpool.

A superb game was marred by some poor offside calls, especially when Carlos Tevez scored the opening goal from a clearly offside position.

Taking advantage: Carlos Tevez edges home the opening goal from an offside position
It was a routine decision which the assistant missed. Not such an easy call was unfortunately made incorrectly, again at the expense of Blackpool, when a throughball was missed by the marginally offside Elliott Grandin and ran on to a clearly inside Gary Taylor-Fletcher who finished superbly.

No such consultation between Phil Dowd and his assistant who mistakenly judged that Campbell had played the ball and therefore had interfered with play.

When the system works it is fabulous; when it does not it merely reinforces the feeling that a moment to review on a video replay could prevent a lot of costly errors, which are natural given how difficult these calls are.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1321479/Graham-Poll-Why-Tom-Huddlestones-goal-rightly-stood--Blackpool-benefit-accuracy.html#ixzz12j9MHXAM

[Lighthouse]

Handily ignoring the goal that Everton scored where the keeper was in front of the Liverpool keeper and clearly offside as he had to move to get out of the way of the goal bound shot.

Also the Spuds goal was allowed becaise FIFA has decided that a player in an offside position is only interfering with play if he touches the ball. So next time a ball is put forward and the player in an offside position runs for it, he will not be offside until he touches the ball. Thus giving time for a team mate to join him from an on side position, pass back to the player who was off side but is no longer off side.

MAKES NO SENSE SO PLEASE LETS NOT HAVE OFFSIDE. IF POLL THINKS THIS MAKES SENSE THEN WE HAVE A GAME THAT NO LONGER DOES.

[LBNo11]

...shame that referees decisions seem selective in favour of our opponents on such a consistent level, and yet we do not benefit from the rub of the green on major incidents. Must be a coincidence...
:022:

[Logicalman]

...shame that referees decisions seem selective in favour of our opponents on such a consistent level, and yet we do not benefit from the rub of the green on major incidents. Must be a coincidence...
:022:

Jeez LB, you the latest recruit into LH's conspiracy theory group now??  :005:  :002:

[JBH]

Poll was on Talk Shite this morning and he said that Huddlestone's goal was ok but Artetas should have been disallowed, he tied himself up in knots and could not give a straight answer.

He is a total Knob just like he was as a Referee  :028:

[Lighthouse]

Sorry this just annoys me so much. Poll says the keeper was not unsighted by the Spurs player. But by being in his line of site and moving to the ball, how in Polls name can the keeper not react to the movement of the Spuds player. Or does the Keeper also have to decide if the player is going to touch it and just ignore the movement knowing the ref will whistle for offside should the off side player touch it.

MAKES NO SENSE.

Right I promise that's it. No no I promise. But how can you NOT be offside if ....no no stop it.

[mccscratch]

So.... the by this logic the USA did beat Italy in 2006... Interesting how they claim one decision is right when they back the decision against Beasley/McBride for the identical scenario... what a joke!!

5:15 mark for the disallowed goal....

2006 World Cup Group E Italy v USA

[ImperialWhite]

Sorry mccscratch, I can see why that goal was disallowed - there was a player (in an offside position) that was obscuring the view of the ball to the keeper.

Is there are video of the goal from saturday? Still haven't seen it! Is the goal below similar to the Spurs goal?

[ImperialWhite]

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/fulham-tottenham-longer-highlights-7226415/

Just after 2mins in. I don't know. Gallas was interfering with play, in my view, but was it onside because it clipped Baird? If this is the case than it should be given as a Baird own goal (obviously I don't want Baird credited with an og particularly, but if the logic goes that it clipped Baird so its onside, than it's Baird's goal by definition, surely?).

[Lighthouse]

According to Poll the goal stood because the Spuds player was not in the line of sight and the Keeper and was not active as you are now only active if you touch the ball. Baird touching it is of no importance according to the new rule. That I was unaware of.

[Logicalman]

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/fulham-tottenham-longer-highlights-7226415/

Just after 2mins in. I don't know. Gallas was interfering with play, in my view, but was it onside because it clipped Baird? If this is the case than it should be given as a Baird own goal (obviously I don't want Baird credited with an og particularly, but if the logic goes that it clipped Baird so its onside, than it's Baird's goal by definition, surely?).

IW,
The goal was given to the spuds player because if, in the opinion of the referee (or the dubious goal panel later on) the ball was on target towards the goal when kicked, then a deflection does not count as an own goal, and the original shot stays.
In this case, Huddlestone's shot was definitely on target, and it glanced off Baird, so the goal is counted as Huddlestones.

[epsomraver]

http://www.101greatgoals.com/videodisplay/fulham-tottenham-longer-highlights-7226415/

Just after 2mins in. I don't know. Gallas was interfering with play, in my view, but was it onside because it clipped Baird? If this is the case than it should be given as a Baird own goal (obviously I don't want Baird credited with an og particularly, but if the logic goes that it clipped Baird so its onside, than it's Baird's goal by definition, surely?).

Iw under the law of the game you cannot be played on by a deflection, Baird would have had to had passed the ball back intentionally for Gallas to be played onside, how can a player not be interfering with play in the box and in front of the goalie? it is a joke and while you have the likes of Blatter and his corrupt  , (alledgedly) cronies running the game it will always be