what do everyone think about the second goal

imo i dont think he was offside because he wasnt active when the ball was hit (ronaldo hit a direct shot)

if ronaldo's free kick went straight in then nothing would have been said about berbatov and if im right about the offside law then he isnt classed as active until boruc saves it and seeing as berbatov was behind the ball when boruc set him up then its onside.

in my opinion though

Always the part of your posts everyone else has problems with. It was a goal. The match officials said so.

He was offside when the ball was kicked and was seeking advantage if there was a rebound so yes offside, if it had went straight in the no offside.

He was offside when a Utd player struck the ball, so surely he is??

Scottish TV will say he was, English TV will say he wasn't or argue that it is a 'toughie'

But at the end of the day it is complete moot.

Okay, so we're in murky water here. The goalie parried the ball out and that doesn't count as being played to Berbatov by an opponent? Do I read that right?

the wrong forum.
Jesus,i knew huns were thick but this is going a bit far

There is no grey area, Berbatov was in an offside position seeking an advantage which he duly got, therefor offside.

There is no debate here at all.

Actually, you're participating in one and the assistant referee saw it differently. Never mind. Thank you for clarifying the rule though, Dog.

Glad to assist

Preshaydit.

Personaly thought the first 2 were offside, which made it even better picking up my Tim mate this morning and hearing him cry "we were cheated, if it wasnt for those goals we wouldve held on til half time". Last night is the first and last time I will EVER support Man Utd lol (apart from when they go to Parkhead)

He was offside as when the ball rebounds back he has the advantage. Should have been flagged.

Doesn't make any difference, we got pumped anyway. We could have played for about 3 weeks with Man U not even on the park and we still wouldn't have scored a goal

Ferguson said both 'goals' were offside.

It's clearly defined in the rules of the game:

"Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position means playing a ball that rebounds to the player off a post or crossbar or playing a ball that rebounds to the player off an opponent having been in an offside position. "

It should have been flagged offside.

These things even themselves out over a season

But surely we were victims of a referee going out of his way to cheat in order to ensure Msan Utd won? After all, when decisions go for us domestically i.e. a dubious corner of free kick given, it is down to cheating referees.

No, it's down to incompetent referees. You can't deny that you've had quite a startling number of decisions gone your team's way over this season already, you were due one back.

What is it they say here – Whooooosh.......

P.S We have had a startling number of decisions go against us as well by the way.

Frank de Bleeckere , the ref for the game on Tuesday , has apologised for the errors which led to Utds 1st & 2nd goal ...'At the time , we were not aware of the errors. There was no protest. But when you see the images , it's a shame.'
Both Ferguson & match officials have admitted it .

To be fair, it has been near-unanimously accepted that the two goals were offside - the English based media admit that the two goals shouldn't have stood.

Still shite officiating, mind. I see the referee's apologised - any such sentiments from the men running the line?

Think it was a collective apology.

Well the same could be said when we went out in the last 16 of the champions league. 0-0, Villareal countered Forlan standing in an offside position, 10 yards out, right in front of keeper. Shot hit when keeper saves he was in an onside position (defender had got back) goal was given.

This is a situation which they need to clear the rules up on. Is it when the KEEPER touches the ball, or is it when it leaves the TEAM-MATES body?

Uefa really need to make a statement on that and help with the confusion, the English even tried to argue that the leg of the Celtic defender was in line with Berbatov, so he wasn't ahead of him due to the "any part of body" part of the rule.

Er, no it isn't.

It is, always has been, and almost certainly always will be when the original shot is struck. There's no confusion here and no doubt. The rules are clear, Berbatov was offisde, and everyone, including the match officials and Manchester United have conceded it.

Lord alone knows why there's a growing thread about it.

Not true, the law talks of a second "period of play" which is deemed when he becomes "active"

Why intell did the goal stand for Villareal at Ibrox when the guy stood infront of the keeper, surely this means he was also "active"?

The silence, it sure is deafening.

Edit: noticed thread in the Rangers V Celtic area, honestly never noticed anyone mention anything in the thread I posted the comment in, not even sure which topic I posted in. Post in too many now