It's onside?
It isn't if Mount touches it first, but as he doesn't, yeah, he's onside.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It's onside?
I think the defender intentionally plays the ball there.It hasn't. The striker is offside when the initial ball is played. The deflection doesn't matter as it's unintended.
It's like a through ball coming off the leg of a defender who's got an interception wrong, rolling through to a striker five yards offside - it's still offside as the forward ball was initially made by the opposition player.
It comes down to whether it's a 'deliberate play' on the ball.
All that said, if Mount doesn't touch the ball as some have said (looks it from that angle but haven't seen others), then the point is moot. If the defender just hooks the ball over his own head, even if under pressure, then Giroud is onside. If it's deflected off his toe after Mount gets the first touch, he's offside.
I think the defender intentionally plays the ball there.
I do know, but we're really going to do months of "OMG the RS are going to win it!!!" again when they aren't even any good?
Dont write of the rs just yet.Did you not watch football in 2005?
You could be earning big money with imagery like that.City playing with Gladbach like a Cat plays with a dying Bird
To be fair, they were robbed of a point there, it was a penalty, but were did the ten minutes come from I just don’t know. It should have ended on 90+5 mins when it was 2-2.Only beaten Spurs at the Amex this season I think. They've really thrown a few games away though. Last night, the game against United where they dominated but lost in the 96th min come to mind