BrickTop...you are correct.........again..!!!

[Bricktop]

Moving out of the way of the ball and not touching it is not interference.

correct...being in the path of the ball while being in an offside position is though

[Peter R]

correct...being in the path of the ball while being in an offside position is though

Where did you get that information? you can cite a RELIABLE source ? that excludes your own imagination

[Bricktop]

That is the basic offside rule...if you are in an offside position and the balled is kicked to you...you are offside...you don't have to touch the ball

[Peter R]

Law 11 - offside
Offside position
It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:

he is in his own half of the field of play or
he is level with the second-last opponent or
he is level with the last two opponents

Law 11 - offside
Offence
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 or
interfering with an opponent or
gaining an advantage by being in that position
Law 11 - offside
No offence
There is no offside offence if a player receives the ball directly from:

a goal kick
a throw-in
a corner kick

Law 11 - offside
Infringements and sanctions
In the event of an offside offence, the referee awards an indirect free kick to the opposing team to be taken from the place where the infringement occurred (see Law 13 - Position of free kick).

This is what FIFA says; the only interpretation for disallowing the goal is as I highlighted, i.e. "gaining an advantage by being in that position"... the player was neither interfering with play nor with a player. So how did Newcastle gain an advantage with the player standing where he was? I don't see it. Nothing in the law says anything about a ball being hit in the direction of the player.

Anyhow, the match demonstrated that your side is not the juggernaut you and HL pretend it is, as y'all looked very vulnerable for long stretches, and without the helping hand of the ref things could have been different.

[Bricktop]

Of course he was interfering with the play...the ball was kicked directly to him...did you miss him ducking out of the way?

[Peter R]

I saw him move out of the path of the ball, yes. Is that interfering with play?? Did you notice that he moved AWAY from Joe Hart who was about 2 yrds to his left (facing the goal)? hmmm why do you think the linesman CORRECTLY IMO did not raise his flag??

[Bricktop]

Well if he had to move out of the path of the ball that means the ball was kicked directly towards him...that coupled with him being in an offside position when the ball was kicked constitutes offside...simple

[Bricktop]

[Peter R]

If you're happy with that interpretation run wid it! I don't agree but the man with the whistle did and that's what counts in the end

[Tilla]

PR, give it up. That is why he is called BrickTop, 'im head hard.
Im jussa play fool fi ketch wise.

[Paul Marin]

Its just you

Okay - thanks for clearing that up.

[Muadib]

The ref had to put himself in the mind of the player in some cases to determine 'intefering with play'..

What is reasonable has to have a point of view and it must be the point of view of the player that would be affected !

Duh...

[Muadib]

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

You would have to argue that he interferred with play or inteferred with an opponent or gained and advantage by being in that position..

[Muadib]

yuh soon get the wake up call...

[Bricktop]

It has already been established that the ball was kicked directly to the player in an offside position...a player in an offside position does not have to touch the ball to be adjudged offside