That goal Ruud scored against Italy

Originally Posted by El Calafate

well i was wrong.

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

nft.

ffs - I said that if the rule was that the player off the pitch was playing the attacker onside then it is obviously £#%&!ing onside.


As stated - you may or may not agree with the rule but to be honest that counts for shit if the rule was in place before the game was started.

Originally Posted by Harri Jaffa

ffs - I said that if the rule was that the player off the pitch was playing the attacker onside then it is obviously £#%&!ing onside.


As stated - you may or may not agree with the rule but to be honest that counts for shit if the rule was in place before the game was started.

well it's a stupid rule. nft.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

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.

Got it. Probably you only actually call forwards "active".

Not a referee but I suspect in that case he'd be onside as he's not seeking to gain an advantage - in essence, different rule for the defender than for the attacker.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

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.

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

Got it. Probably you only actually call forwards "active".

Not a referee but I suspect in that case he'd be onside as he's not seeking to gain an advantage - in essence, different rule for the defender than for the attacker.

Yeah that's what I was getting at and presumed.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

well it's a stupid rule. nft.

Tough shit

nft

El Calafete, on the ball as ever. Can't wait for his in depth analysis of whether Hurst's second goal in 66 actually crossed the line or not. Due sometime next year I'd imagine.

Originally Posted by Ether

El Calafete, on the ball as ever. Can't wait for his in depth analysis of whether Hurst's second goal in 66 actually crossed the line or not. Due sometime next year I'd imagine.

To be fair, my eight year old still isn't buying it.

But then, to his credit, he does say "should have" instead of "should of".

Originally Posted by Ether

El Calafete, on the ball as ever. Can't wait for his in depth analysis of whether Hurst's second goal in 66 actually crossed the line or not. Due sometime next year I'd imagine.

Originally Posted by Charlestown Rouge

To be fair, my eight year old still isn't buying it.

But then, to his credit, he does say "should have" instead of "should of".

oh, tweedle dee and tweedle dum have arrived.

the forums answer to Saint & Greavsie.

nft.

Should "of " got a bigger picture there

Most of the people on here take El Calafte WAY too seriously.

You know who you are

NFT

I agree with that rule and goal should stand.

why the £#%&! you penalise holland for the gaffe of buffon and panucci?

If that rule was changed, the managers like rafa, sam allardyce and mourinho would probably ask many defenders to just step out of the pitch at the right time to play attackers onside. It will create more mayhem if anything.

FIFA get a thumbs up from me for that rule.

Originally Posted by keano's love

I agree with that rule and goal should stand.

why the £#%&! you penalise holland for the gaffe of buffon and panucci?

If that rule was changed, the managers like rafa, sam allardyce and mourinho would probably ask many defenders to just step out of the pitch at the right time to play attackers onside. It will create more mayhem if anything.

FIFA get a thumbs up from me for that rule.

in english? nft.

You couldn't understand that?

Originally Posted by TheKitchenSink

You couldn't understand that?

he lost me at "many defenders"

nft.

Originally Posted by El Calafate

he lost me at "many defenders"

nft.

I think he's suggesting managers would get defenders to jump off the pitch to catch players offside.

Originally Posted by antonin jablonsky

I think he's suggesting managers would get defenders to jump off the pitch to catch players offside.

no wonder el fails to grasp a point ( again ) and bedders understands it.

Originally Posted by keano's love

no wonder el fails to grasp a point ( again ) and bedders understands it.

erm, el is taking the piss out of your inability to articulate your point

i'm part of the calafate revolution

el still cracks me up, I'm sorry

He's like a jester trying to convince the onlooking hoards that he's actually quite sane, as they throw tomatos at him in the stocks.

Charles, Harri and ether just ripping him to shreds yet he somehow maintains some sort of argument with a hundred 's , quotes and nft.'s

He is the fred village idiot nft.

Originally Posted by keano's love

no wonder el fails to grasp a point ( again ) and bedders understands it.

Far be it from me to defend nft £#%&!features but you said defenders would step off the pitch to play attackers onside.

Which is wrong.