Originally posted by AikoHe doesn't have to touch the ball to be offside; he's offside if the referee think he interferes with the play. I would say he interfered even though he didn't touch the ball but offside is always debatable in these cases.
If the ball was touched by the player being offside, then yes. But it was not touched. So no offside. Referees don't just make bad calls only, you know.
In fact, offside is always debatable; it's a stupid rule, it's impossible to enforce and it's the cause of too many bad calls.
Originally posted by Svin1That is indeed the one rule in need of being canned! Do away with it once and for all and let them play!
He doesn't have to touch the ball to be offside; he's offside if the referee think he interferes with the play. I would say he interfered even though he didn't touch the ball but offside is always debatable in these cases.
In fact, offside is always debatable; it's a stupid rule, it's impossible to enforce and it's the cause of too many bad calls.
Originally posted by Crowleywhat suarez did in that game is one of the most amazing things I've ever seen in a football game.
Uruguay OUT!
😵
And, if it's about justice, Appiah was offside even before Suarez put his hand, so actually Uruguay was robbed (cause they suffered a penalty in a illegal play and their player received red card).
Uruguay absolutelly deserved to be on the semi. And was AGAIN injured by a ref mistake.
Originally posted by Svin1It's not a stupid rule. The offside rule is one of the reasons that make the game so dynamic.
In fact, offside is always debatable; it's a stupid rule, it's impossible to enforce and it's the cause of too many bad calls.
A great article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/apr/13/the-question-why-is-offside-law-genius
