@Klin @Klin @Klin @Klin
We won the match and I'm happy about that, but the problems in our play are obviously still there for the unbiased, non-ignorant fan to see.
Buy on AliExpress.com
[Serie A] Nipples Soccer 1-3 JUVENTUS (January 11th, 2015) (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Hust
- Start date
What's the matter, turd?
We won the match and I'm happy about that, but the problems in our play are obviously still there for the unbiased, non-ignorant fan to see.
We won the match and I'm happy about that, but the problems in our play are obviously still there for the unbiased, non-ignorant fan to see.
Buy on AliExpress.com
I think that as soon as Chiellini tried to play the ball he became active and was therefore offside.
I see Gazzetta disagrees with me though with regards Chiellini being active.
They still say the goal was offside, but on the basis that Caceres was marginally beyond the line.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Serie...sato-tiene-mano-roma-lazio-100460146557.shtml
I see Gazzetta disagrees with me though with regards Chiellini being active.
They still say the goal was offside, but on the basis that Caceres was marginally beyond the line.
http://www.gazzetta.it/Calcio/Serie...sato-tiene-mano-roma-lazio-100460146557.shtml
Did Chiellini any of the following. If the Refs eyes? No. In other words: He wasn't offside:
I've seen plenty of situations similar to Chiellini's since the implementation of the new offside-rules and most of the tiem the Refs sees it as not being an offence. The refereeing "experts" af Danish television agrees with that consensus as well.
I've seen plenty of situations similar to Chiellini's since the implementation of the new offside-rules and most of the tiem the Refs sees it as not being an offence. The refereeing "experts" af Danish television agrees with that consensus as well.
Within the current interpretation of the rules he may well not have been interfering with play.
I, however, fail to see how trying to head a cross when in the middle of the goal, eight yards out, can be interpreted as not interfering with play.
Even if he doesn't touch the ball, he is bound to have an impact on how the defenders behave.
I, however, fail to see how trying to head a cross when in the middle of the goal, eight yards out, can be interpreted as not interfering with play.
Even if he doesn't touch the ball, he is bound to have an impact on how the defenders behave.
Yeah, it's not easy to define.
But I think that as soon as he tries to head the ball he has to be given offside.
I accept that generally the 'interfering with play' rule can't be strictly implemented because everyone who is vaguely in the vicinity of the ball is always interfering with play to some extent and I don't think anyone wants to return to a 1970's interpretation of the offside rule.
But I think that as soon as he tries to head the ball he has to be given offside.
I accept that generally the 'interfering with play' rule can't be strictly implemented because everyone who is vaguely in the vicinity of the ball is always interfering with play to some extent and I don't think anyone wants to return to a 1970's interpretation of the offside rule.
His central position is probably the only real interference, because really there is no Napoli player near Caceres.
As soon as the first replay was shown you could see it would be incident where someone could find fault with positioning or an offside, but really Napoli defended it very poorly and it was millimetres.
As soon as the first replay was shown you could see it would be incident where someone could find fault with positioning or an offside, but really Napoli defended it very poorly and it was millimetres.
