Mitro's offside goal and penalty appeal

[toshes mate]

Clutching at straws.
Mitre was clearly offside as shown on Sky and it was never a penalty.

Not clutching at straws mate - the last straw shrivelled up last week at Burnley. Just saying they were fine line interperative decisions that we rarely get going in our favour.

+1

[Aldo]

From the FA.com:

Q4: Can a player who interferes with play after a rebound or save be given offside?
YES – interfering with an opponent or play after a rebound or save is clearly an offside offence if the player was originally in an offside position.

[PokerMatt]

From the FA.com:

Q4: Can a player who interferes with play after a rebound or save be given offside?
YES – interfering with an opponent or play after a rebound or save is clearly an offside offence if the player was originally in an offside position.

Came on to post my thoughts, which are exactly this. Of course he's offside because how is a parry from the keeper the 'second phase of play'? There isn't a second opportunity for him to be offside so it has to be the same passage of play.

[alfie]

This offside rulings have become farcical, the the ball was not a pass to him it was a shot at goal that he made no attempt to get, then he was onside and the ball came to him from a spurs player, goal in my eyes.

[Whitesideup]

From law 11

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee, involved in active play by:

interfering with play
interfering with an opponent
gaining an advantage by being in that position

Mitro gained an advantage. I think this is being applied consistently if not always accurately, ie mistakes have been made, but that doesn't mean they are ignoring the advantage gained, just that the linesman/ref misjudged the position. But it was close, a matter of a foot or two, not miles.

Lloris penalty - on tv thought Lloris just about got his hand to the ball first. Yes, if he played it through Mitro, penalty should have been given. But even if it he had, timing was so tight I can't blame the ref.

Vertongen on Mitro in the first half = stonewall penalty, not 6 and 2 3s. Once he fell, (not pushed) Vertongen  grabbed Mitro and took him down with him. Similar was given against Sessegnon. Referee bottled it. Mitro still complaining at half-time.

I thought most close decisions went against us, exception being Rose's yellow -  the holding of Mitro by Sanchez was clear to see, as was the off the ball forearm into Mitro's chest in the second half. There's always a bit of give and take, but once the forward has the ball at his feet, refs should really give a foul if they are still being mishandled. If there was blatant physicality beforehand by the forward, then that free kick should be given. But no free kick at all just does not make sense. Might as well use Aussie rules.