Comments on: Chelsea Suffer Arsenal Disease In 1-2 Killer Blow

By: B

Tue, 02 Dec 2008 09:40:26 +0000

you have to be kidding, i didnt bother reading the article after i read the 'media summation'

duh

it was offiside

thanks for that

By: Lance

Lance — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 23:56:04 +0000

Obviously, all here agree it was offside. But those are the breaks. Great finish, though! If RVP had blasted high and wide, then we wouldn't be talking about this. You have to play through the whistle, as they say in American football. Great second goal, too. As a Chelsea fan, they didn't deserve to win. I agree that they have been very inconsistent, with two home losses this year, and some very poor UCL results (Roma, Bordeaux). It's all for the best, as a close, 4- or 5-way race makes things interesting at season's end!

By: MJ P

MJ P — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:35:46 +0000

As long as the original pass was intended for van Persie the pass is considered to have been made by Denilson to van Persie.Did Cole deflect the ball in van Persie's path when it wouldn't have reached there otherwise? No, it was always intended for van Persie and it reached him so it was offside.

By: johnmcken

johnmcken — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:35:58 +0000

Law 11 – Offside

Q. An attacking player, bringing the ball up the field, attempts to pass the ball to his teammate, B. Player B is in an offside position. However, before the pass reaches player B, the ball deflects off a defender. The deflection ends up going directly to player B, who was in an offside position at the time of the intended pass. Is the play stopped and offside penalty assessed?
A. Offside. The deflection by the opponent does not change the fact that the player in the offside position gained an advantage from his position and was therefore actively involved in play.

By: aguntuk

aguntuk — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 04:26:21 +0000

Classic Match . I am happy to see chelsea loosing

For more news, videoz and goals click http://speciallysports.com/the-gunners-broke-th...