Basic Geometry question:
in [World Football]
|
Prev: African football
Next: 2nd ROUND preview
From: KaiserD2 on 20 Jun 2010 19:59 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Alessandro Riolo <alessandro.riolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On 20 June, 22:38, Mehdi <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote: >> Can we please not waste time on something as TRIVAL as a possibly bad >> offside call? It's not important. Put it to bed, move on. > >I sort of agree. > >The big news of the match was that Italian NT was held to a draw, and >could have well been defeated, by a team which would struggle to stay >afloat in Serie B and could probably not even get a promotion from >Serie C. > >The beauty of world cups :) While acknowledging that Benny is in principle correct (see above), now that I've watched the two goals I have two comments. 1. There is no way that the New Zealand goal was offside.
From: KaiserD2 on 20 Jun 2010 20:02 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:59:58 -0400, KaiserD2(a)gmail.com wrote: Sorry, let's try this again--see below. >On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:07:57 -0700 (PDT), Alessandro Riolo ><alessandro.riolo(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On 20 June, 22:38, Mehdi <Be...(a)soccer-europe.com> wrote: >>> Can we please not waste time on something as TRIVAL as a possibly bad >>> offside call? It's not important. Put it to bed, move on. >> >>I sort of agree. >> >>The big news of the match was that Italian NT was held to a draw, and >>could have well been defeated, by a team which would struggle to stay >>afloat in Serie B and could probably not even get a promotion from >>Serie C. >> >>The beauty of world cups :) > While acknowledging that Benny is in principle correct (see above), >now that I've watched the two goals I have two comments. > 1. There is no way that the New Zealand goal was offside. No one was offside when the free kick was taken. When it came down it struck a defender's head, which does not make anyone offside. Andy Gray muddied the waters of ESPN because he thought it hit a New Zealand head but the replay from the upfield angle made it clear that that was NOT the case. 2. Yes, the defender did grab his shirt, but that was one of the most pathetic dives I have ever seen--he dove after the guy let him go! Lastly, the Italian penalty taker pointed his off foot in the direction of the shot--the goalkeeper didn't pay attention or didn't care. DK
From: Manx Gunner on 20 Jun 2010 20:02 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 19:59:58 -0400, wrote... > While acknowledging that Benny is in principle correct (see above), > now that I've watched the two goals I have two comments. > > 1. There is no way that the New Zealand goal was offside. 2. ?
From: Manx Gunner on 20 Jun 2010 20:05 On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:02:46 -0400, wrote... > 1. There is no way that the New Zealand goal was offside. No one > was offside when the free kick was taken. When it came down it struck > a defender's head, which does not make anyone offside. Andy Gray > muddied the waters of ESPN because he thought it hit a New Zealand > head but the replay from the upfield angle made it clear that that was > NOT the case. The BBC guys (or was it ITV? I don't remember now) were insisting the same thing, as well. Even after the replays made it very clear that it didn't touch a Kiwi's head, they kept saying that it had. Very odd.
From: Mart van de Wege on 20 Jun 2010 23:54
KaiserD2(a)gmail.com writes: > On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:17:59 +0200, Mart van de Wege > <mvdwege(a)mail.com> wrote: > >>KaiserD2(a)gmail.com writes: >> >>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 10:16:49 -0700 (PDT), "HD(noSpam)Beers(a)gmail.com" >>> <hdbeers(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>How can a ball reach an Italian player (not a goalkeeper) before it >>>>reaches a Kiwi (read USA's D team) player and be a violation of the >>>>offsides rule? >>> >>> There's nothing wrong with your geometry--the problem is your >>> understanding of the rule. Keep in mind that the key moment isn't >>> when the player behind the next-to-last defender touches the ball, >>> it's the moment when a teammate strikes it towards him. >> >>According to FIFA's presentation to the referees and assistant referees, >>being in an offside position on a rebound off an opposing player also >>counts as interfering with play. >> >>Now, is a ball deflecting forward off a defender still a rebound? And >>was Smeltz level with Cannavaro when the ball deflected off him? >> >>Mart > > I think you are misunderstanding the rule too. "Being in an > offisde position on a rebound off an opposing player" means you were > in an offside position when that ball was originally struck by your > own player. Yes, well, the wording is a bit vague. Because it refers to a rebound off an opposing player when the ball is played, without clarifying that the rebound itself does not count as the ball being played. Now, I understood it the same way you did, *before* I started rechecking the rules. It's FIFA's wording that started me doubting. I *think* they could use a good editor. Mart -- "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes." --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source. |