>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Baaaah.
I guess you're gonna vote for Obama and Goldman Sachs again this year as well?
>> ^Quboid:
This video is trying to tell me that EA remake the same shitty game that idiots buy over and over.
However, what it actually tells me is that the maker of this video is a hipster asshole who thinks his opinions are worth more than other people's, and who thinks because they don't like Call of Honour, then people who do are simple minded, gullible sheep. This asshole is so full of his or her own opinion that anyone who disagrees must have fallen for EA's evil marketing because anyone actually thinking independently would surely have the same opinion as them, as they're so fucking special; they're the only sane person.
EA, Activision and Ubisoft do produce many shitty games and are involved in underhanded tactics like buying reviews. However, that doesn't mean all their games suck and it doesn't mean people who like an EA game, even an uninnovative sequel, are wrong. The implication that we should all follow what this guy thinks (or if you prefer, independently come to the same conclusion) would make us sheep.



What? You know this is a video about EA, not a political thing, right? I can assure you I am not going to vote for Obama or Goldman Sachs this year but this has zero to do with me thinking this guy is a prick for setting himself up as some sort of superior being.

If the video just criticised EA's game production system and how it results in a massive lack of innovation, and how PC gamers tend to get shafted, fine. I agree. But this guy implies that players who buy the latest FIFA, Battlefield or whatever are fools and that's insulting. I bought BF3 because I liked BF:BC2, not because something shiny was dangled in front of me and not because IGN gave it good marks. Likewise, I bought FIFA12 because I played FIFA11 lots and even though little has changed, I've still got many, many times as much gameplay from it than I've got from most other games from developers and publishers big and small.

My complaint isn't that poor little EA don't deserve the criticism. My complaint is that he seems to think people who don't share his opinion must be fools.

He handled it like a true FIFA player though.... you keep mashing on that shoot button NO MATTER WHAT just in case your guy gets up from that anal assault and still has the ball

Your video, Unbelievable FIFA 12 Goal, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

We were disagreeing about whether this was offside, not whether or not the goal was valid.

I think referees let players back on the pitch when their momentum takes them out like it did here. Also for returning the ball to play, i.e. throw-ins, corners and goal-kicks. I think that's a rule but it might just be common sense, I don't remember.

Edit - here we go, I assume this is up to date (emphasis mine):
"If a player accidentally crosses one of the boundary lines of the field of play, he is not deemed to have committed an infringement. Going off the field of play may be considered to be part of a playing movement."

Going off the field of play when wrestling with an opponent must be considered accidental or a "playing movement" (which is a great phrase!).

>> ^Quboid:

Yes @Unsung_Hero, but as I also pasted, this only applies "if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" which it does not. I even emphasised it.
I didn't stumble across the rule, I know the rules and I've read the FIFA rules handbook that I posted a section from. The time that matters is when the ball is passed by his team mate, which is never.
He was in an offside position, but that doesn't have any relevance when your team is not in possession.



"However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the fi eld of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play."

With this scenario a teammate doesn't need to have touched the ball. The goal should not have been allowed and the ref SHOULD have cautioned the player, in my opinion. It is up to the ref's consideration as to whether or not the attacker gained an "unfair advantage" from leaving the field and returning. I think it's obvious but I wasn't reffing.

I do apologize for saying you "stumbled" across the FIFA Handbook. I do wish more people would read it.

Yes @Unsung_Hero, but as I also pasted, this only applies "if, at the moment the ball touches or is played by one of his team" which it does not. I even emphasised it.

I didn't stumble across the rule, I know the rules and I've read the FIFA rules handbook that I posted a section from. The time that matters is when the ball is passed by his team mate, which is never.

He was in an offside position, but that doesn't have any relevance when your team is not in possession.

>> ^Quboid:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
I fully understand offsides and both of you along with the ref are wrong on this one. He is in an offside position when he plays the ball and in doing so he gained an advantage. It does not matter if the other team (defender) played the ball or not. Also, Quboid is correct as well for the player leaving the field and entering back again without permission. I know this happens all the time and is never really made an issue.

You are offside the moment your team-mate touches the ball on - this moment didn't occur. The only thing that had occurred in the phase of play that the attacker scores from is for the goalkeeper to put the ball down. It's like when a defender plays a pass-back, if there is an attacker near the goal keeper, in an offside position, they will probably score because at no point did a team mate touch the ball towards them.
Edit - from The Rule Book (emphasis mine):

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

You should really read what you post as a reference more in depth instead of stumbling across part of the rule and pasting it as your argument...
From FIFA:

"“gaining an advantage by being in that position” means playing a ball that
rebounds to him off a goalpost or the crossbar having been in an offside
position or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having
been in an offside position"

"It is not an offence in itself for a player who is in an offside position to step
off the fi eld of play to show the referee that he is not involved in active play.
However, if the referee considers that he has left the fi eld of play for tactical
reasons and has gained an unfair advantage by re-entering the fi eld of play, the
player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour. The player needs to ask for
the referee’s permission to re-enter the field of play."

...Which is exactly what I was saying.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
I fully understand offsides and both of you along with the ref are wrong on this one. He is in an offside position when he plays the ball and in doing so he gained an advantage. It does not matter if the other team (defender) played the ball or not. Also, Quboid is correct as well for the player leaving the field and entering back again without permission. I know this happens all the time and is never really made an issue.


You are offside the moment your team-mate touches the ball on - this moment didn't occur. The only thing that had occurred in the phase of play that the attacker scores from is for the goalkeeper to put the ball down. It's like when a defender plays a pass-back, if there is an attacker near the goal keeper, in an offside position, they will probably score because at no point did a team mate touch the ball towards them.

Edit - from The Rule Book (emphasis mine):

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

>> ^shagen454:

Funny how PC love is coming back. PC will ALWAYS be the best people, never, EVAR! forget that. I only wish I could play Red Dead Redemption...


Shooters and consoles fit together as good as keyboards and FIFA, or RTS with a joystick, or driving games with a mouse.

He got the yellow card because FIFA changed the Law, if you feint to kick the ball it is now a misconduct.

*dead for:

"Dwyane Wade Full Court Alle...'
This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:

* FIFA
* FIFA
* FIFA"

Or be an uppity internet nerd and go around telling people they're doing it wrong. "Hey stop posting Ron Paul videos! But hey, did you see my umpteenth Fifa World Cup video?"

Or maybe I can be an annoying hypocrite and moan and piss about some copyright owner taking down my free internet videos?

>> ^hpqp:

Meanwhile, Iran's team forfeits 2012 Olympic qualifiers for wearing too much.


That article is AWESOME! Fuck yea, FIFA!

Being a huge Soccer fan I'm interested in the "World Cup" coming to countries where this kind of thing is going on. Something tells me it has something to do with deregulation and FIFAs ability to make as much money as it can leaving the public with the bills. I mean we can look at South Africa now and see how well they're doing with their fancy new stadiums they built...while FIFA made off with Billions.

This goal won the Puskas award, for the best goal of 2010.