>> ^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

>> ^EMPIRE:

I think someone really doesn't understand the offside rule.


>> ^A10anis:

>> ^Unsung_Hero:
Even though I truly enjoy watching the sneakiness of the forward (Although this trick has been done many times before), he is offsides and the goal shouldn't stand.

He is not offside. The ball was not played to him by his own team. I think everyone, including the referee, realised that.


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.

Seriously: this guy is in an offside position, but he is not offside. He's only offside if he is in an offside position when team mate passes the ball and he is interfering with play (i.e. touches the ball, blocks an opponent, etc). He certainly "interferes with play" but not from a team mate's pass so no foul.

I could see this being ruled out because the sneaky player leaves the pitch and comes back on without permission. This happens all the time (slide tackles, taking corners/throws) but I think if used to gain an advantage, a referee could pull the play up and book the player.

In this case, the guy is just coming back and takes the chance, but I've seen players go right around the back of the opponents' net to gain position and maybe catch someone out and that is pushing it.

>> ^Unsung_Hero:

Even though I truly enjoy watching the sneakiness of the forward (Although this trick has been done many times before), he is offsides and the goal shouldn't stand.

He is not offside. The ball was not played to him by his own team. I think everyone, including the referee, realised that.

>> ^rottenseed:

At least it's better than soccer/football where you could get a penalty and the referee doesn't even have to give a reason.

How would that be worse than punishing people for showing emotions, if it was true?

At least it's better than soccer/football where you could get a penalty and the referee doesn't even have to give a reason.

This isn't a stupid rule, it's a stupid application of the rule. Only the punter knows what he was thinking. He could have been looking at his teammates and giving a gesture of "Look at me, I'm the punter and I'm about to score the first touchdown of my career." The referee can't know that he's taunting and to me it didn't look like he was. The rule should be amended to read thou shalt not make any gesture that might be interpreted as taunting or showboating.

>> ^Grimm:

Also...it looks to me like he starts it..realizes "oh shit" and stops a split second later. Chicken shit call...your team lost those points fair and square... nothing about a split second of pre-celebration had anything to do with it...your team BLEW IT!


It's not an incorrect call. You can criticize the rule but to criticize the referees for enforcing a rule that's on the books and they've been instructed to enforce is stupid. Point the finger at the coaches and the player for not understand the rule.

It curbs showboating. And just as the commentors mention, it was the COACHES who wanted this change. You can hardly blame the referees for enforcing it.

>> ^dannym3141:

@mgittle
Some fair points, but who's to say that everyone's annoyed with wall street? I'm not, i'm annoyed with government, so sitting in wall street means nothing to me. How can people be pissed off at wall street for excelling under the rules of the system?
I personally think that anger at "wall street" is childish. If you set out a bunch of rules and say "the more pebbles you have the cooler you are" and i'm better than you and get most of the pebbles leaving few pebbles left for you, perhaps even start loaning you pebbles for a while at an interest of 3 pebbles a day, should i be strung up for being better than you at getting pebbles?
I mean, if those guys did something illegal to get their money, why aren't they sat behind bars and the money returned whence it came? Perhaps because it was too beneficial to the government at the time to pursue it? I cannot blame them.
We'll see what happens, i would love to be wrong. But i still think nothing is going to happen until we have that inspirational figure to unite everyone's annoyances (at the very least).
Also @criticalthud is 100% correct! Behind the thin veneer or government and law, we are each alone on this planet competing for survival with no rules and no referee.


It's not childish they wrote those rules that they live under. They designed this government and they set it in place to help themselves. So yes taking it to them makes perfect sense...and furthermore it works, it actually scares the crap out of them.

If we protest the government the people be protested are replaced with people who can do nothing. We protest the owners of the country and it's a serious threat that they worry about so they fold whatever bullshit they're doing.

Why do you think this is taking soo long to get any meaningful traction on networks...because it's dangerous.

@mgittle

Some fair points, but who's to say that everyone's annoyed with wall street? I'm not, i'm annoyed with government, so sitting in wall street means nothing to me. How can people be pissed off at wall street for excelling under the rules of the system?

I personally think that anger at "wall street" is childish. If you set out a bunch of rules and say "the more pebbles you have the cooler you are" and i'm better than you and get most of the pebbles leaving few pebbles left for you, perhaps even start loaning you pebbles for a while at an interest of 3 pebbles a day, should i be strung up for being better than you at getting pebbles?

I mean, if those guys did something illegal to get their money, why aren't they sat behind bars and the money returned whence it came? Perhaps because it was too beneficial to the government at the time to pursue it? I cannot blame them.

We'll see what happens, i would love to be wrong. But i still think nothing is going to happen until we have that inspirational figure to unite everyone's annoyances (at the very least).

Also @criticalthud is 100% correct! Behind the thin veneer or government and law, we are each alone on this planet competing for survival with no rules and no referee.

that's ridiculous!

a referee's "time-out" should be followed by a "box." Otherwise, the action is suspended. For the ref to count a knock-out like that is just completely absurd.

But then again, rule number one of the sweet science is, and will always be, protect yourself at all times.

>> ^longde:

Hard fouling and over agreesiveness from players and fans is actually a new tactic from Chinese teams. This had nothing to do with GT, and has happened to other international teams. Apparently they've thought their players were wimps, and decided to overcompensate with over-the-top violence: http://www.nbcwashington.com/blogs/capital-games/128022218.html


I've never seen any sports game that went to become a brawl because of one team. Two teams are on the court/field/pitch along with their coaches on the side and the referees. So without seeing the game in it's entirety I can't agree that it's all the Chinese players fault.

If the player refuses to leave the pitch the referee can suspend the game...or terminate it.

Well, us sexists need to stand together ya know!!
Though that comic strip did disencourage me from posting a longer opinion. I've never actually seen anything like that happen online but it really seems likely.
In reply to this comment by moodonia:
Thanks for the support! I wasnt sure if that was going to explode in my face but I thought I needed to stand up and be counted, so cheers! :

In reply to this comment by lampishthing:
Hear hear.>> ^moodonia:

I think this video is bang on the money pointing the larger hypocrisy in all this, and in particular the Dworkin-esque ranting that has been a staple of daytime tv since the 80's.
Recently two sportscasters made off camera sexist comments about the abilities of female referees, they both lost their jobs.
These five fuckwits are breaking their hearts laughing about a gruesome sex attack that almost resulted in murder, I assume they all still have jobs? I'm guessing the show hasnt been cancelled?
I find it very encouraging that people are calling them out on this, about time.
promote