Not sure how you see it as being so clearly offside! It is a marginal call whether Bowler (player 1) was playing Wright on or not, and I don't think there could have been too many complaints if it was given. However, with the manner of the 2 goals we conceded it is probably just best to put it down as further evidence that it just wasn't our day and move on.
If you are judging only by both players feet then for me Wright was definitely onside as Bowlers left foot is playing him on. The questionable part is where Wright's shoulder is in relation to Bowler's left foot, and for me that is marginal and not clear either way.
If you are judging only by both players feet then for me Wright was definitely onside as Bowlers left foot is playing him on. The questionable part is where Wright's shoulder is in relation to Bowler's left foot, and for me that is marginal and not clear either way.
Really don’t see the advantage being gained in a situation like that having your shoulder six inches ahead. Seems like the rule doesn’t pass the sniff test as is. Wasn’t there something about it going back to clear distance or something?
Really don’t see the advantage being gained in a situation like that having your shoulder six inches ahead. Seems like the rule doesn’t pass the sniff test as is. Wasn’t there something about it going back to clear distance or something?
Marginal but looks off to me. Given we have benefited from one or two well offside goals I don't think can quibble about this one. I can't remember the city players moaning much at the time, and Robins barely mentioned it.