World Cup 2010

what advantage does he have if the ball goes straight into the net without him being a part of the play?

 

i can understand on the rebound part.

 

EXACTLY MY POINT. He's not interfering with shit if he LETS THE BALL GO. After that, his perceived advantage is negated and he is no longer off-side because two defenders were in front of him.

Do you even read the rules?

 

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

 

He definitely gained an advantage by being offside. And he will be flagged for offside until the ball is played by another player.

 

To put it another way: If a player is offside when the ball is played with a long pass, but he is onside when the ball gets to him (say the defenders caught up with him), IT'S STILL OFFSIDE.

 

If I'm reading your argument right, this is the exact same thing, and wrong.

 

You're not reading my argument right, LOL.

 

You're missing the crucial point, HIM TOUCHING THE BALL.

 

In your long pass scenario, he's still offside when the defenders catch up with him IF he makes contact with the ball. But if he doesn't, the ref can't call him on anything.

 

So, if there's a long pass, he's off-side, the defenders catch up to him and he's on-side again, and he doesn't touch the ball UNTIL he's on-side, he can play it legally and score.

I understand the rules fine, and they prove my point. The first line of that rule states:

 

 

 

And you're wrong. He's not off-side UNTIL he plays the ball.

 

See, the rules prove it.

 

I'm only challenging your interpretation of the above, hence why my scenario called for him NOT TO TOUCH THE BALL until the defenders were in front of him, at which point he would no longer be off-side.

 

That's my entire argument! And, I believe it to be the correct one.

 

 

A player is in an offside position if:

• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the

second-last opponent

 

Read that again, it is clear. No mention of the player in the offside position having to play the ball. He was in an offside position and in front of goal!

 

Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball

touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,

involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

 

Again, the important points are "at the moment the ball

touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,

involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

 

I'm afraid your interpretation is wrong. At that one split second when the ball was played towards him, taking into account his position, he's offside. How long have you been watching football by the way?

Naturally Ref's opinion comes into it.

But if he gets in the way of the keeper then it is offside, played a game about three weeks ago when I unleashed a shot that just flew into the net, I think I left some of my boot polish on it.

The ref disallowed it and gave offside because my team mate was in a offside position but the ref deemed his position blocked the view the keeper had of the ball.

 

Gutted.

 

The damn keeper (Oscar Perez in this case) wasn't part of the fcuking play any longer. He was on the ground behind Tevez, there was no interference. Did you even see the fcuking play a few times.

To bring this back to the clueless-American bend that I oh-so-prefer being a soccer-hating clueless American myself, I present my two favorite paper headlines of the weekend. One being very very right in its tone, and the other being very very wrong. You ladies guess which is which.

 

Mako I wish you liked soccer, I might have to come there and convert you

 

 

I wonder what the retards from New York Post would've used as a headline if US went through, sore losers are we?

 

and yes Fabio Capello is italian and he did let his country down by coaching the cheerleaders from UK .

The damn keeper (Oscar Perez in this case) wasn't part of the fcuking play any longer. He was on the ground behind Tevez, there was no interference. Did you even see the fcuking play a few times.

 

Yes I saw it. I can watch it again and again on the BBC website. But I gave an actual real life example of the interference and advantage rule.

 

Surely someone that is questioning my intelligence can see that?

 

BTW you are still arguing against FIFA's own rules.

I'm afraid your interpretation is wrong. At that one split second when the ball was played towards him, taking into account his position, he's offside. How long have you been watching football by the way?

 

I've both watched and played the game all of my life, and at times competitively.

 

I'm not arguing that he wasn't offside at the split second the ball was played. But, the ball wasn't played toward him, it was a shot on goal, NOT A PASS.

 

How the hell does nobody get what I'm saying?

 

 

Here's a scenario you must have seen a million times during a match.

 

There's a long pass, the striker is clearly off-side, but the side line judge doesn't raise his flag or call off-side UNTIL the striker touches the ball.

 

Why is that? Simple, even though he's off-side, it's NOT ILLEGAL UNTIL he touches the ball.

 

How can we not agree on this?

and yes Fabio Capello is italian and he did let his country down by coaching the cheerleaders from UK .

 

If England had cheerleaders, they'd probably have played better than the England team!

Yes I saw it. I can watch it again and again on the BBC website. But I gave an actual real life example of the interference and advantage rule.

 

Surely someone that is questioning my intelligence can see that?

 

BTW you are still arguing against FIFA's own rules.

 

I'm not arguing against the rules? How dense are you? I'm arguing against your interpretation of them.

I'm not arguing against the rules? How dense are you? I'm arguing against your interpretation of them.

 

My interpretation is the FIFA rule which is the advantage gained from being in that position.

 

Again from the PDF from the FIFA website page 31

 

Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball

touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,

involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

 

And then calling me dense? I bet you think irony is something you do to your shirts.

My interpretation is the FIFA rule which is the advantage gained from being in that position.

 

Again from the PDF from the FIFA website page 31

 

Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball

touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,

involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

 

And then calling me dense? I bet you think irony is something you do to your shirts.

 

I'm done with this shit, you've contributed exactly nothing to this thread except useless banter and shortsightedness.

 

You haven't had a single valid point and keep doing nothing but pointing to the rules which you clearly can't append to the scenario at hand.

 

 

 

 

 

I've both watched and played the game all of my life, and at times competitively.

 

I'm not arguing that he wasn't offside at the split second the ball was played. But, the ball wasn't played toward him, it was a shot on goal, NOT A PASS.

 

The fact that the ball was or wasn't a pass to Teves is irrelevant. The important points are that the ball was played forwards towards goal and at that moment, Teves had only the goalkeeper in front of him, and he was directly in front of goal with a goalscoring opportunity.

There's a long pass, the striker is clearly off-side, but the side line judge doesn't raise his flag or call off-side UNTIL the striker touches the ball.

 

Why is that? Simple, even though he's off-side, it's NOT ILLEGAL UNTIL he touches the ball.

 

How can we not agree on this?

What the hell are you on about? They do exactly that all the time. Don't you get that if he ever gets the ball, him being in that offside position when the ball was played gave him the advantage, no matter how onside he is when he first touches the ball?

 

Why do you think they always freeze the frame when the ball is played, not when the player gets it?

The important points are that the ball was played forwards towards goal and at that moment, Teves had only the goalkeeper in front of him, and he was directly in front of goal with a goalscoring opportunity.

 

MY GOD! You have got to be fcuking kidding me. You've been trying to make a point this whole time and you didn't even see the play that's being talked about?

 

 

What the hell are you on about? They do exactly that all the time. Don't you get that if he ever gets the ball, him being in that offside position when the ball was played gave him the advantage, no matter how onside he is when he first touches the ball?

 

Why do you think they always freeze the frame when the ball is played, not when the player gets it?

 

LOL, but how can there be an advantage when he's on-side?

 

How is a player supposed to have an advantage from being off-side when he doesn't have a ball to score with.

 

Picture this. 9 of the opposing players are in an off-side position, lets say they're 10 meter's ahead of the 10 other players of the defending team.

 

The last player of the attacking team passes the ball to his teammate's but he kicks it so high that it takes about 10 seconds for the ball to reach his guys.

 

In that 10 seconds the defending team has enough time to return their 10 players in front of their goal and thus make the attacking players no longer off-side.

 

The ball falls to the ground and the attacking players scoop it up.

 

HOW CAN THE REF call them off-side? Where is the advantage?

 

This is the same as the scenario of your long pass. Just with more time involved to illustrate the point.

 

If the striker touches the ball when he's on-side again, it doesn't matter when the ball was played or if he was off-side. There's no longer an advantage, and you'll never convince me otherwise.

 

 

Were you a referee in the Eng versus Germany match at the weekend because he didn't know the fcuking rules either.

Funny!!!

 

Wrong. Check the rules of the game. You're making this up as you go along.

Sounds like it..

 

I've both watched and played the game all of my life, and at times competitively.

Ahh, explain that to me. You've played but only AT TIMES competitively?

 

I'm not arguing that he wasn't offside at the split second the ball was played. But, the ball wasn't played toward him, it was a shot on goal, NOT A PASS.

 

How the hell does nobody get what I'm saying?

 

 

Here's a scenario you must have seen a million times during a match.

 

There's a long pass, the striker is clearly off-side, but the side line judge doesn't raise his flag or call off-side UNTIL the striker touches the ball.

 

Why is that? Simple, even though he's off-side, it's NOT ILLEGAL UNTIL he touches the ball.

 

How can we not agree on this?

Dude, nobody gets what you're saying because what you're saying is wrong... I know what you're trying to convey but, If he's in the position to touch the ball he is offside, bro. Although the call isn't made until he touches the ball, hence proof of gained advantage.. He has to be so far out of play and to actively show no involvement or interaction with any player that you just wont see the scenario that you're referring to.. No way will a guy ever be close to a goal and a goal be scored with him not touching the ball and offside NOT be called. there will always be the possibility that the goalie was distracted or vision was blocked, therefore gaining an advantage. The guy would have to be in the corner sitting down when a goal is scored for offside not to be called. Just deal with it. Tevez is, was, and always should have been called offside whether he touches the shot or not.

 

I'm not arguing against the rules? How dense are you? I'm arguing against your interpretation of them.

Give it up man...

MY GOD! You have got to be fcuking kidding me. You've been trying to make a point this whole time and you didn't even see the play that's being talked about?

 

 

 

No I'm not fcuking kidding you. Where the fcuk do you come up with "You've been trying to make a point this whole time and you didn't even see the play that's being talked about?" Yes I watched the fcuking game as it happens. I also stand by everything I've fcuking said. You're the fcuking one who keeps fcuking arguing against everyone fcuking else and the FIFA Rules!

Tevez is, was, and always should have been called offside whether he touches the shot or not.

Give it up man...

 

You're wrong, you cannot call a player off-side if he doesn't touch the ball.

 

And no, I won't give it up.

 

Did the founding fathers give up while the British were taxing the Colonies without Representation?

 

Did R.Kelly give up after his first underage sex scandal charge?

 

Did the Allies give up when Hitler rolled into France and Russia?

 

No God dammit, NO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trying to lighten the mood here!

Funny!!!

 

 

Dude, nobody gets what you're saying because what you're saying is wrong... I know what you're trying to convey but, If he's in the position to touch the ball he is offside, bro. Although the call isn't made until he touches the ball, hence proof of gained advantage.. He has to be so far out of play and to actively show no involvement or interaction with any player that you just wont see the scenario that you're referring to.. No way will a guy ever be close to a goal and a goal be scored with him not touching the ball and offside NOT be called. there will always be the possibility that the goalie was distracted or vision was blocked, therefore gaining an advantage. The guy would have to be in the corner sitting down when a goal is scored for offside not to be called. Just deal with it. Tevez is, was, and always should have been called offside whether he touches the shot or not.

 

Correct!

No I'm not fcuking kidding you. Where the fcuk do you come up with "You've been trying to make a point this whole time and you didn't even see the play that's being talked about?" Yes I watched the fcuking game as it happens. I also stand by everything I've fcuking said. You're the fcuking one who keeps fcuking arguing against everyone fcuking else and the FIFA Rules!

 

Are you blind?????????

 

You said the keeper was in front of him and the goal, WHERE????????????

MY GOD! You have got to be fcuking kidding me. You've been trying to make a point this whole time and you didn't even see the play that's being talked about?

 

 

Wrong again. Even if they caught up to him THEN he touches the ball, there may have been an advantage because he was ahead to begin with when the ball was played HIS WAY. you cannot guarantee the ball was going in by itself NOR if it was in fact a pass or a shot, so the call must be made. Advantage being when it was played HIS DIRECTION he had gained an advantage over the other defenders because he was behind them when it was touched. Regardless if the goalie was in the play or not...

Picture this. 9 of the opposing players are in an off-side position, lets say they're 10 meter's ahead of the 10 other players of the defending team.

 

The last player of the attacking team passes the ball to his teammate's but he kicks it so high that it takes about 10 seconds for the ball to reach his guys.

 

In that 10 seconds the defending team has enough time to return their 10 players in front of their goal and thus make the attacking players no longer off-side.

 

The ball falls to the ground and the attacking players scoop it up.

 

HOW CAN THE REF call them off-side? Where is the advantage?

 

Congratulations, you just described the perfect example of an offside lol.

Congratulations, you just descibed the perfect example of an offside lol.

 

Ok, I think I'll stop this madness now.

guys the moral of the story is that Tevez was offside and the goal was allowed you can talk about it until you blue in the face the outcome will never change.

 

King-640 you are misinterpreting the rules.

 

I know you acknowledge that Tevez was offside when he scored but you make the mistake thinking that if the ball wasn't destined to him and he steps behind the defenders or the defenders return and play him onsite somehow that cancels his original offside position, during that particular play he gained an unfair advantage by being in an offside position to begin with, the ref has the power to decide if he gained an advantage based on his placement when he does play the ball and rule on or offside.

 

I hate the offside rule because it always ends up being controversial, in the heat of the game some calls are so close and it is quite hard for the players and the ref to work it out, we have the benefit of watching it on a massive screen with the scene being replayed hundreds of times, try to figure it out with 100,000 vuvuzelas blasting in your ears, because of that FIFA has to step up their game and do something about it, video ref or more human refs.

 

Irrespective of Lampard disallowed goal and Tevez allowed goal the fact still remains that Germany and Argentina respectively won convincingly over their opponents, we can talk about "what ifs" forever.

 

Tevez did redeemed himself by blasting a missile past the keeper.

guys the moral of the story is that Tevez was offside and the goal was allowed you can talk about it until you blue in the face the outcome will never change.

 

King-640 you are misinterpreting the rules.

 

I know you acknowledge that Tevez was offside when he scored but you make the mistake thinking that if the ball wasn't destined to him and he steps behind the defenders or the defenders return and play him onsite somehow that cancels his original offside position, during that particular play he gained an unfair advantage by being in an offside position to begin with, the ref has the power to decide if he gained an advantage based on his placement when he does play the ball and rule on or offside.

 

I hate the offside rule because it always ends up being controversial, in the heat of the game some calls are so close and it is quite hard for the players and the ref to work it out, we have the benefit of watching it on a massive screen with the scene being replayed hundreds of times, try to figure it out with 100,000 vuvuzelas blasting in your ears, because of that FIFA has to step up their game and do something about it, video ref or more human refs.

 

Irrespective of Lampard disallowed goal and Tevez allowed goal the fact still remains that Germany and Argentina respectively won convincingly over their opponents, we can talk about "what ifs" forever.

 

Tevez did redeemed himself by blasting a missile past the keeper.

 

I'm with you!

 

It's a stupid rule and it needs to go. I'm sure we can all agree with that.