Our second goal today

Offside?

No idea from the Canton but it looked like both Ameobi and Mason were offside leading up to our second goal.

Anyone have a better view of it?

http://www.skysports.com/footballleague ... ddersfield

Its onside.

Mason onside.
Ameobi off but didn't touch the ball

Mason onside.
Ameobi off but didn't touch the ball

Didn't he interfere with the keeper though?

Looked to me like Ameobi touched it past the goalie and Mason put it in.

The Huddersfield players were not happy were they?

Looked to me like Ameobi touched it past the goalie and Mason put it in.

The Huddersfield players were not happy were they?

thats how i saw it, thought mason was offside when ameobi touched ball past goalie! or did goalie touch ball?

On TV it didn't look like Ameobi got near the ball and also didn't get in the keepers way.

On TV it didn't look like Ameobi got near the ball and also didn't get in the keepers way.

On TV it didn't look like Ameobi got near the ball and also didn't get in the keepers way.

Just saw it both onside just! Ameobi did touch it past goalie but Mason onside

On TV it didn't look like Ameobi got near the ball and also didn't get in the keepers way.

Just saw it both onside just! Ameobi did touch it past goalie but Mason onside

I thought Mason touched it past the keeper himself ?

On TV it didn't look like Ameobi got near the ball and also didn't get in the keepers way.

Just saw it both onside just! Ameobi did touch it past goalie but Mason onside

I thought Mason touched it past the keeper himself ?

No def ameobi! Mason was left of goalie and ameobi touched it past him to Mason

Just watched for the eighth time, ameobi pulls his foot back does not touch the ball, but under the new rules the goal could have been disallowed , but the linesman was going by the old rules, perhaps he did not get the memo

Just watched for the eighth time, ameobi pulls his foot back does not touch the ball, but under the new rules the goal could have been disallowed , but the linesman was going by the old rules, perhaps he did not get the memo

That's what i said to guy by me on initial view! But bow to your better eyesight regarding ameobi missing Ball, but I think both were onside when played in ?

Just watched for the eighth time, ameobi pulls his foot back does not touch the ball, but under the new rules the goal could have been disallowed , but the linesman was going by the old rules, perhaps he did not get the memo

That's what i said to guy by me on initial view! But bow to your better eyesight regarding ameobi missing Ball, but I think both were onside when played in ?

I sit in the Canton Stand right behind the goal and I can assure you 100% that Ameobi passed it to Mason for him to knock it in.

Just watched for the eighth time, ameobi pulls his foot back does not touch the ball, but under the new rules the goal could have been disallowed , but the linesman was going by the old rules, perhaps he did not get the memo

That's what i said to guy by me on initial view! But bow to your better eyesight regarding ameobi missing Ball, but I think both were onside when played in ?

I sit in the Canton Stand right behind the goal and I can assure you 100% that Ameobi passed it to Mason for him to knock it in.

Mmm so my eyesight is OK then?

Just watched for the eighth time, ameobi pulls his foot back does not touch the ball, but under the new rules the goal could have been disallowed , but the linesman was going by the old rules, perhaps he did not get the memo

sure is!




That's what i said to guy by me on initial view! But bow to your better eyesight regarding ameobi missing Ball, but I think both were onside when played in ?

I sit in the Canton Stand right behind the goal and I can assure you 100% that Ameobi passed it to Mason for him to knock it in.

Mmm so my eyesight is OK then?

I was checking football scores on my phone as it happened.

Should never have stood ameobi was offside and poked it through to mason. He has been given an assist so that proves he touched it

I was standing behind goal in canton, ameobi did not touch it and for me was offside. He made a nuisance if himself for me and although didn't touch it was interfering. I wouldn't have complained if it was given put it that way but bout time we had sone luck

We've already had decisions go against us this season, and this time we've had the rub of the green. It's irrelevant whether it was offside or not, ref's decision is final and the only thing that counts is the final score. As always, these decisions tend to even themselves out over the course of the season, and that's why there's no point in moaning too much when we get one that goes the other way.

So many different opinions on here. Two guys sitting in the Canton, one swears 100% Ameobi touches it the other swears he didn't.
Just shows how difficult it's for the officials.
I think we also got away with what looked like a definite penalty when Morrison fouled the Huddersfield guy in the second half.

I was standing behind goal in canton, ameobi did not touch it and for me was offside. He made a nuisance if himself for me and although didn't touch it was interfering. I wouldn't have complained if it was given put it that way but bout time we had sone luck

Ameobi was not offside when ball played he was inline with Mason so if Mason onside ameobi was as well? What happened afterwards was irrelevant , guess complaints were that one was offside when goal scored? But neither were originally!

I was standing behind goal in canton, ameobi did not touch it and for me was offside. He made a nuisance if himself for me and although didn't touch it was interfering. I wouldn't have complained if it was given put it that way but bout time we had sone luck

Ameobi was not offside when ball played he was inline with Mason so if Mason onside ameobi was as well? What happened afterwards was irrelevant , guess complaints were that one was offside when goal scored? But neither were originally!

Just looked again both onside and ameobi did touch ball past goalie 100% used slo mo

So many different opinions on here. Two guys sitting in the Canton, one swears 100% Ameobi touches it the other swears he didn't.
Just shows how difficult it's for the officials.
I think we also got away with what looked like a definite penalty when Morrison fouled the Huddersfield guy in the second half.

I wasn't there but I'll go with Chris Powell's opinion. He was asked about the 'offside' in the post match interview and he said it was 100% onside. No problem. His players were wrong. That will do for me.

Not 'lucky'. Not 'rub of the green'. Just a correct call by the officials.

Its onside.

It was offside, not the through ball, it was when Mason touched it to Sammy who was in front of him, so in a offside position and interferring with play, no replay shown of the goal either but hey who cares ,

Its onside.

It was offside, not the through ball, it was when Mason touched it to Sammy who was in front of him, so in a offside position and interferring with play, no replay shown of the goal either but hey who cares ,

thankyou!!!

at last someone with sense

Mason touches the ball first, ameobi is infront of him when he touches it and then touches the ball next meaning he was offside.

Its onside.

It was offside, not the through ball, it was when Mason touched it to Sammy who was in front of him, so in a offside position and interferring with play, no replay shown of the goal either but hey who cares ,

Ah so f*cking what.

When Ralls played the ball through, Mason and Ameobi were both onside. When Ameobi touched it around the keeper to Mason, Mason was behind Ameobi, meaning he wasn't offside. Well done to the officials for making the correct call. Chris Powell said it was definitely onside too, so I think we can all agree the goal should have definitely stood.

Ameobi was offside when Mason touched the ball after ralls played it through. 100% shouldn't of stood but evens it our as I thought they should of had 10 men