That goal Ruud scored against Italy

just seen it for the first time.

what a £#%&!in joke!

they might as well said the crowd was playing him on.

if they let goals like that stand, they might as well all go home.

jesus £#%&!ing christ.

nft.

dont worry about it

Originally Posted by Sloane

dont worry about it

Originally Posted by Sloane

dont worry about it

oh, but i do.

nft.

I love how a player in the penalty area can be deemed not interfering with play but one on his back is deemed "live".

It happened to Italy and therefore doesn't matter.

Hope this helps.

when g nev is left holding his ankle by the net and ronaldo crosses it for ruud to slot a winner home at the bernabeu in the champions league semi final. then worry about it

Originally Posted by dodger

I love how a player in the penalty area can be deemed not interfering with play but one on his back is deemed "live".

you want to hold a decent tournament, saying that international football is still better than club football, and then you let a gaol like that stand, and then uefa come out the following day saying it's the correct decision????

mickey mouse, that's what it is.

nft.

he's so angry he can't type!

nft.

Originally Posted by dodger

I love how a player in the penalty area can be deemed not interfering with play but one on his back is deemed "live".

I think the point with that is that it only really refers to players in the attacking team. I don't actually agree with it but I think the rule changes talking about active players and phases and all that shite were only done in that context. i may be wrong.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

I think the point with that is that it only really refers to players in the attacking team. I don't actually agree with it but I think the rule changes talking about active players and phases and all that shite were only done in that context. i may be wrong.

Makes it no less ridiculous.

Originally Posted by dodger

Makes it no less ridiculous.

I agree, the entire offside rule is nonsense these days. Fabregas not being offside was idiotic last night.

I agree that there should be a rule that if a player is off the pitch (not being attending to for being injured) that they still count as playing.


If not the defending team can just walk off the pitch instantly bringing the attacking player offside.


It was Buffon's fault that his player was off the pitch, if he had pushed less or at a slightly different angle he would have just been on the field and playing Ruud on.


The rule makes sense to me when you think of it like that, although when I first saw it I thought it was worse than 'that' decision against Porto...

Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa

I agree that there should be a rule that if a player is off the pitch (not being attending to for being injured) that they still count as playing.


If not the defending team can just walk off the pitch instantly bringing the attacking player offside.


It was Buffon's fault that his player was off the pitch, if he had pushed less or at a slightly different angle he would have just been on the field and playing Ruud on.


The rule makes sense to me when you think of it like that, although when I first saw it I thought it was worse than 'that' decision against Porto...

this just shows what a £#%&!wit you are. anyone who thinks that goal should of stood should be kicked off this board for being a plum. nft.

Doesn't make any difference - if he'd been sat injured on the pitch, line or just over it off the field of play. He's still active according to the Laws of the Game. Therefore, the Laws would have to change, which they haven't yet. So he's onside. Easy really.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

this just shows what a £#%&!wit you are. anyone who thinks that goal should of stood should be kicked off this board for being a plum. nft.

Twas only last week you said I was the only person on this board that had some sense

Make your mind up



Anyhoo - If there is a law that says that players that are off the pitch but not injured count as playing people on side that the goal was onside.

You may or may not agree with the rule but that is a different issue innit

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Doesn't make any difference - if he'd been sat injured on the pitch, line or just over it off the field of play. He's still active according to the Laws of the Game. Therefore, the Laws would have to change, which they haven't yet. So he's onside. Easy really.

So is it correct that this whole "inactive" players business only refers to players on mthe attacking team then? A forward who'd fallen five yards off the pitch before a goal was scored would've been considered active after all.

Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa

Twas only last week you said I was the only person on this board that had some sense
Make your mind up



Anyhoo - If there is a law that says that players that are off the pitch but not injured count as playing people on side that the goal was onside.

You may or may not agree with the rule but that is a different issue innit

well i was wrong.

i can't believe you think that goal was legit.

nft.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

So is it correct that this whole "inactive" players business only refers to players on mthe attacking team then? A forward who'd fallen five yards off the pitch before a goal was scored would've been considered active after all.

Didn't get any of that I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Didn't get any of that I'm afraid.

I was just asking if players can only be inactive if they are attacking the goal. My point being that had aforward been knocked off the pitch in the position Panucci was and Ruud had scored, the goal would've been allowed as the player would've been considered inactive, where Panucci was considered active.