Well, if a player has to make a play on the ball to be called offside, then McBride against Italy at K-Town would not have been offside. TomDuke, what's your source on what FIFA's advice to referees is? Not saying I don't believe you
Ha ha. Half the fun of BS is to watch guys like you meltdown right in front our our eyes when you can no longer make a rational argument. Thanks, and have a nice day! Clue: the "perspective" lines shown on the Google still are correct because they are actually drawn right overtop of the lateral markings on the grass.
McBride was called offside because he was in an offside position and obstructed the Italian keeper's view of the shot, hence he was "involved" in the play. DeRo, on the other hand, wasn't screening anyone, didn't have the ball played to anywhere near him, and wasn't even offside (as the still shows, he was 2-3 yards onside).
The point is that what you said is wrong. Blatantly so. In fact, it's in opposition to the truth. And believe me kid (I can be blithely trite too), I ain't "guys like me"... I don't bother with the endless copy & paste opinionation becasue I'm not really into the desperate struggle to climb the heap of right and wrong. I just say whatever I want to say, and if you don't agree, that's tough shit. And if all you want to come back with is lame-assed denials papered in "wit", you and your crew better brush up on synonyms for "rubber" and "glue". TIP #47 from Saeyddthe's Complete Chimp Guide™ to posting on the innernetz: Don't start sentences with "Clue"... I would say "especially when you have none"...but in your case, I'll just go ahead and say "never". That should save the flowery mound of mumu that'll be teaching you geometry next year some heartache. I hope you've enjoyed this experience.
This has all been very interesting debate and reading -however, the call was offside. Right, wrong or indifferent that was the call. End of discussion. Camera angles, freeze frame proves that the debate for instant replay in soccer is a moot one.Because even with camera angles and such the debate could rage for hours - as it has here. You can't have that in sports - how can you expect a referee in the booth to be able to split hairs if you can't after the fact. If they had instant replay in the World Cup in 2002 - then the U.S. could have tied Germany and gone on to the semi-finals. We don't know they would have even made the penalty kick. Or, if they could have scored another goal or won on penalties. Just like we don't know if Canada could have one the game in extra time or penalty kicks. Canada goes home - United States goes on. Do you know how Canada proves the call was wrong? Qualify for the World Cup - prove that they were worthy of being in the Gold Cup final. That this just isn't a good run (which it was). We will see how that works out! They have had trouble even making it to the final round of qualifying. The last time they were included was probably when they qualified for the Cup in 1986? Maybe they will make it this time. The way it is proved is on the field. Not in a chat room.
Bullseye. Anyone who has AR'd at any significant level knows that the whole DeSario discussion is ridiculous. He was never involved in any way which is taught by FIFA or USSF. Mistaking (or seeing) that Hume touched the ball is the only assumption that makes sense given the timing of the flag. Either the AR thought it brushed Hume before Gooch's header or he was so focused on the line he didn't see clearly who headed it and assumed it was Hume. The teaching that when in doubt keep the flag down applies to the player's position not to who touched it last. In this case, Hutch was clearly offside at the last touch. It is up to the ref to recognize that the touch was from an opponent and not a teammate and wave the flag off. -Ball