Originally posted by wormwoodPlease. Give me the old "Italy", the "old" Argentina or the "old" Brazil any time of the day. Klinsmann was the only one worth watching and he was no "Panzer".
indeed. the 'hit' they get falling down to ground is 99 times out of 100 harder than the light brushing bumb which 'made them' fall. usually they're even holding a part of their body which wasn't even near the hit. I think all such deceits should be heavily penalized even after the game.
in fight sports the guys receive full power kicks on legs without b ...[text shortened]... that. nowadays the germans dive just like your average italian. I miss the old days.
Originally posted by wormwoodI added that purely to emphasize that the defender wasn't lying in the goal mouth where it was possible to block a goal effort.
the 'inactive position' rule doesn't count for defenders, does it?
My point was that whether he is on the pitch or not is largely irrelevant given the stated rules.
D
Originally posted by wormwoodNo, but if the player is getting treatment off the pitch (and thus requires permission to enter) then he isn't considered for offside reasons. I don't know if there's a label for a player like that, but it's not the same type of 'inactive' as we have for attackers.
the 'inactive position' rule doesn't count for defenders, does it?
Originally posted by Palynkawell, germany has won euro championships 3x, and italy only once way back in the 60s. they must've done something right.
Please. Give me the old "Italy", the "old" Argentina or the "old" Brazil any time of the day. Klinsmann was the only one worth watching and he was no "Panzer".
argentina and brazil are a completely another thing though. 🙂
Originally posted by RagnorakYes, if he's on the pitch he plays the attacker onside.
Do you think that it would have been the correct decision if he got thumped and landed in the field of play in an inactive position (ie: on the 18 yard box towards the corner flag away from the action) ?
D
Regardless of his medical condition.
1 edit
Originally posted by wormwoodWould that be the old German team with Jurgen Klinsmann - with such a reputation as a diver that he eventually adopted the dive as his goal celebration?
the old german team was great because they never dove. no matter how hard they were hit
Jurgen's impression of a man taken out by a sniper:
http://uk.
2 edits
Originally posted by mtthwOh, yeah, let's ignore the fact of the studs up tackle and the fact that, in reality, there was contact. 😵
Would that be the old German team with Jurgen Klinsmann - with such a reputation as a diver that he eventually adopted the dive as his goal celebration?
Jurgen's impression of a man taken out by a sniper:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=tB7Y33VteME
Hilarious.
Edit - And then you shed a tear for Eduardo, as if you didn't endorse violent play as being "fair".
Originally posted by blade68Well, this is the whole problem I'm talking about.
.. as long as the lino is in line with the last defender and has the ball in his peripheral vision, 9 times out of 10 he'll get the decision correct.
The linesman was in line with the last defender, but suddenly the guy outside the field is "in play" as well... There's no way you can snap-judge that. You can't be on-par with the ball and keeping track of folk outside the pitch as well.
Originally posted by shavixmirYes, that's a fair point... and this situation is a prime example of why the 4th official should be employed to make a judgement after studying a pitch side monitor.
Well, this is the whole problem I'm talking about.
The linesman was in line with the last defender, but suddenly the guy outside the field is "in play" as well... There's no way you can snap-judge that. You can't be on-par with the ball and keeping track of folk outside the pitch as well.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaOh, I agree it was a foul. The reaction was still hilarious though. Particularly the break-dancing afterwards. And I didn't shed a tear for Eduardo - I wanted Germany to win that match. Couldn't have happened to a nicer team 🙂
Oh, yeah, let's ignore the fact of the studs up tackle and the fact that, in reality, there was contact. 😵
Hilarious.
Edit - And then you shed a tear for Eduardo, as if you didn't endorse violent play as being "fair".
He also had previous - that's just the only one that's famous enough to be on YouTube.
Originally posted by PalynkaThere is no rule saying anything about a defender being active that I've ever seen, if there was a right back wouldn't be considered ACTIVE if the ball was played down the other wing and he played the attacker onside.
Personally, I think it's a farce to consider a player lying on his back outside of the pitch as active.
I don't think it was a wrong decision simply because the laws are so vague about this that both decisions are justifiable. I do think that the rules should be changed to clarify that this type of situations should be offside. It's clearly not in the spi ...[text shortened]... to have an injured player outside of the pitch to count for the purposes of the offside rule.
The simple fact of he matter is - the lines around the field only indicate where the ball must stay - not the players....
Can anyone tell me why he was outside the field of play - and lying on his back - because he bumped into his own player and fell over - if this happened on the field he'd still be considered active so why wouldn't he if he was lying outside the pitch.
If teh player was injured the referee would have given him permission to be off the field so THEN the goal won't have counted. If he doesn't have the referee's permission who's to say where the player is acting so he won't be considered active. In virtually any other sport players wouldn't act injured - but this is soccer we're discussing so thi has to be taken into consideration as well.
The goal was perfectly legitimate if you read the rules and there is no rule that states otherwise.