Group F: Belgium, Canada, Morocco, Croatia

[Sarnia Kevin]

No I'm saying it was disallowed because the offside player interfered. It was disallowed for offside. It would not have been disallowed if he were onside because the violation was offside.

Okay, you're allowed to fudge it as much as the refs do ?

 

[TheBigIguana]

Okay, you're allowed to fudge it as much as the refs do ?

I'm not fudging anything. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

 

[TheBigIguana]

That post was addressed to people that were fans of football in 2005 Ig.

I was in grade school in 2005

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

He was both offside and interfering. If it was only one or the other the goal would’ve stood

Are you sure you want to stick with that? ?

 

[Billy Dean]

It was offside and that’s it

If he was onside how could be interfering ?

I don’t understand what you mean?

 

[Billy Dean]

Are you sure you want to stick with that? ?

Yes.

 

[Mozza1987]

It was offside and that’s it

If he was onside how could be interfering ?

That's the point if he was onside that it counts but because he was offside and interfering with the goalkeeper the goal is ruled out. If he was offside but didn't touch it and wasn't interfering then the goal counts.

 

[MikeH72]

I was in grade school in 2005

So was I.

 

[Toffeeslam]

I don’t understand what you mean?

I mean if he was onside then the goal would have stood

 

[TheBigIguana]

So was I.

Explains a lot actually

 

[MikeH72]

Explains a lot actually

About who, you or me???

 

[Mozza1987]

Okay, you're allowed to fudge it as much as the refs do ?

I don't think you are quite understanding the rules.

Offside and not touching the ball when offside but interfering with the line of the goalkeeper is offside. As the keeper can't save it either because he can't see the ball or he is expecting the player might touch it and change the direction of the ball.

If he was offside, didn't touch it and wasn't interfering in the sight of the goalkeeper then the goal counts.

 

[Billy Dean]

I mean if he was onside then the goal would have stood

Yes exactly that’s what I meant. He could have blocked the keeper’s line of vision no problem if he had moved there from an onside position

 

[Sarnia Kevin]

I'm not fudging anything. You're not understanding what I'm saying.

This is what you said originally:

Doesn't matter he clearly interferes with the keeper playing it

Nothing about offside. Anyway it doesn't matter, just another poor decision ruining a game.

 

[TheBigIguana]

This is what you said originally:


Nothing about offside. Anyway it doesn't matter, just another poor decision ruining a game.

Read the rest of the thread