[ITA] Serie A 2012/2013 (31 Viewers)

[ALC]

Were teams all doing that constantly ten or fifteen years ago?

I'm not going for taking things back to the seventies where it was weighted to much in favour of the defenders.

If Rodriguez had scored himself, rather than squaring it to Rancaglia, I'd allow the goal.

I don't like that someone can be offside and then become onside again in a way that give the defence absolutely no chance of recovering, as was the case with Roncaglia's goal tonight.

rodriguez scoring himself would be a totally different matter because he wasn't in an offside position to begin with.

And as far as the defense not being able to recover, well no shit they took a risk and it backfired. if they had just tried to defend the setpiece, this wouldn't have happened.

but i know you like seeing low scoring games so i get where you come from. i just think it's another tactic can use.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Völler]

That's exactly what I mean. Can you please show me where in the rules it says that this cannot be interpreted as gaining an advantage by being offside.

@Juliano13

Read page 112 in the PDF you linked to: http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2012_e.pdf
I can't believe I actually found the specific rule just for this incident. I deserve a medal. Page 112 describes exactly what happened today.

I won't make fun of you for not knowing, I'm too good for that.

 

[Zacheryah]

oh good job finding that, didnt bother to scroll down to "interpretation of the rules"

 

[Juliano13]

@Juliano13

Read page 112 in the PDF you linked to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/footballdevelopment/refereeing/81/42/36/lawsofthegame_2012_e.pdf
I can't believe I actually found the specific rule, I deserve a medal . Page 112 describes exactly this incident.

I won't make fun of you for not knowing, I'm too good for that.

OK I agree

I am still shocked that such a retarded interpretation of the rules can exist.

 

[Salvatore]

oh good job finding that, didnt bother to scroll down to "interpretation of the rules"

Are we back to being okay to use the official rulebook then?

 

[Völler]

oh good job finding that, didnt bother to scroll down to "interpretation of the rules"

I just used Ctrl+F and searched for "offside" and found it on one of the first five pictures I looked at.

OK I agree

I am still shocked that such a retarded interpretation of the rules can exist.

I'm pretty sure that rule is there for a reason. I just can't think of why right now 'cause I'm way too tired. Maybe someone less tired will, or I'll have to talk about this tomorrow.

 

[Zacheryah]

Probably to encourage free flowing attacking play


much like the 1990 change, that you cen be level with the defender and not offside

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

OK I agree

I am still shocked that such a retarded interpretation of the rules can exist.

Offside is judging not only because of position of players but because of which person has touched the ball

 

[Zacheryah]

I just used Ctrl+F and searched for "offside" and found it on one of the first five pictures I looked at.



I'm pretty sure that rule is there for a reason. I just can't think of why right now 'cause I'm way too tired. Maybe someone less tired will, or I'll have to talk about this tomorrow.

crtl-f offside gave like what 61 matches ?

 

[Red]

rodriguez scoring himself would be a totally different matter because he wasn't in an offside position to begin with.

Yeah, but if you went back to the interpretation of the offside rule from thirty years ago, the goal would probably have been disallowed because of those other players being in an offside position when the freekick was taken.

The interpretation of what constituted interfering with play was much stricter back then.

And as far as the defense not being able to recover, well no shit they took a risk and it backfired. if they had just tried to defend the setpiece, this wouldn't have happened.

But they did catch all but one of the players offside at the freekick.

Is it fair that all those players are suddenly in clear goal-scoring positions when the header comes back across when they were all in offside positions a second ago?

What Roma did was certainly stupid given the current offside law.

And as far as the defense not being able to recover, well no shit they took a risk and it backfired. if they had just tried to defend the setpiece, this wouldn't have happened.

It's not about liking low-scoring games.

I just don't like mistakes.

I also like to see balanced rules - not ones that massiely favour either attack or defence.

The current offside law i hugely in favour of the attacking side.

 

[Völler]

crtl-f offside gave like what 61 matches ?

True, I see. I just scrolled down to the section where all the matches were, and I found this incident on page 6.

 

[Juliano13]

"If a player who is about to be replaced refuses to leave the field of play, play continues"

LOL some funny shit here. Why hasn't balotelli ever done that?

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

More examples of passive offsides:
http://video.yandex.ru/users/refereeclub/view/182/#hq
http://video.yandex.ru/users/sportsruref/view/273/#hq

 

[Zacheryah]

"If a player who is about to be replaced refuses to leave the field of play, play continues"

LOL some funny shit here. Why hasn't balotelli ever done that?

Dont tell him

 

[Juliano13]

Yeah, but if you went back to the interpretation of the offside rule from thirty years ago, the goal would probably have been disallowed because of those other players being in an offside position when the freekick was taken.

The interpretation of what constituted interfering with play was much stricter back then.



But they did catch all but one of the players offside at the freekick.

Is it fair that all those players are suddenly in clear goal-scoring positions when the header comes back across when they were all in offside positions a second ago?

What Roma did was certainly stupid given the current offside law.



It's not about liking low-scoring games.

I just don't like mistakes.

I also like to see balanced rules - not ones that massiely favour either attack or defence.

The current offside law i hugely in favour of the attacking side.

Yeah, in that case it is stupid to try the offside trap.

- - - Updated - - -

More examples of passive offsides:
http://video.yandex.ru/users/refereeclub/view/182/#hq
http://video.yandex.ru/users/sportsruref/view/273/#hq

Never mind, I was wrong. I didn't know that gaining an advantage was restricted to rebounds.

I really don't like this. The Fiorentina goal doesn't seem fair. But I am against 3 points for a win so..

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

There are a lot of stupid rules in football - 3 subs, why only 3 subs? why you can't make one more sub in the situation when ur player is injured? 6 second rule for goalkeepers is a total joke too etc.

 

[Zacheryah]

wel, i remember a long time ago, keeper was allowed to pick up the ball after dropping it. that was some massive time wasting right there

 

[Völler]

6 second rule for goalkeepers is a total joke too etc.

Lol, why? If that rule didn't exist, then the keepers could just keep the ball in their hands forever.

 

[Juventino[RUS]]

Lol, why? If that rule didn't exist, then the keepers could just keep the ball in their hands forever.

Dude, do you realize that whenever goalkeeper knocking the ball on the ground the "timer" is reset?

 

[Zacheryah]

i allways loved, when a keeper like for example oliver kahn, is massively wasting time.

then they get a goal against, and suddenly they kick the ball back in play under 6 seconds again


allways cracks me up