
***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
ahh it's so refreshing when someone shushes up Jsence 

Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
cdub21 wrote:decision that stated being "nearer to an opponent's goal line" meant that "any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent (the last opponent typically being the goalkeeper). The arms are not included in this definition."[2] This is taken to mean that any part of the attacking player named in this decision has to be past the part of the second-last defender closest to his goal line (excluding the arms) and past the part of the ball closest to the defenders' goal line.jsence2 wrote:brwnbear wrote:Sorry, but he was offsides. You might be correct on the goaline clearance, but the line shows he was offside.jsence2 wrote:That is on par with the Dempsey offside yesterday for being absolute HORSESHIT calls.
No he wasn't.
Look at the defender's back foot. It kept him onside. If you look at bodies, yes; if you look at his foot, he's keeping him onside with his foot.
Meanwhile Slovakia is wasting time left and right. They better add at LEAST another minute.
ANY PART OF THE BODY OTHER THAN ARMS. you admitted that his body was, so that would be offsides. if 1 leg is onside you expect a ref to call that? he sees a guys whole body on the other side he will call it 100%
You're misunderstanding me.
The DEFENDER'S back foot kept the Italian player onside.
The Italian had part of his body behind the defender's BODY, but his foot was still planted behind him. The DEFENDER'S foot was still ahead of the striker; thus he's ONSIDE.
Oh and Nick, go fuck yourself. If either goal is given, Italy ADVANCE with the high-scoring draw. And that one cleared "off the line" was an obvious goal; it hit his knee and his knee was a foot behind the line!
Last edited by jsence2 on Thu Jun 24, 2010 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

S14: N Texas 7-1
S15: Wake 8-5
S16-21: Washington 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 6-7
S22: Ohio 8-5
S23: ECU 12-2
S24-26: Kentucky 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Career: 102-61
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
But again--the defender's FOOT kept the player onside! If every part of the attacker (other than arms) counts, then so does every part of the defender!!!!

S14: N Texas 7-1
S15: Wake 8-5
S16-21: Washington 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 6-7
S22: Ohio 8-5
S23: ECU 12-2
S24-26: Kentucky 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Career: 102-61
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
nick wrote:ahh it's so refreshing when someone shushes up Jsence
Who shushed me, exactly? Even if he WAS offside (which he wasn't), the goal not given was legit, and that goal puts Italy through! Either goal does!
Hence, we were screwed!

S14: N Texas 7-1
S15: Wake 8-5
S16-21: Washington 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 6-7
S22: Ohio 8-5
S23: ECU 12-2
S24-26: Kentucky 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Career: 102-61
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
this isnt a fucking video game where it gets it right by definition. its a person standing there looking at it evenly. and i will guarentee 99%(not italy fans) would call that offsides every single time. teach italy some defense and you wont be in this positionjsence2 wrote:But again--the defender's FOOT kept the player onside! If every part of the attacker (other than arms) counts, then so does every part of the defender!!!!
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
The guy was standing on the line so if his knee is a yard behind the line then... he must have 6 foot legs and be like 10 feet tall.
I think your bias is clogging your judgement. Like I said it might have been a goal, but the Italians have no one to blame for the loss than themselves. They showed up today totally uninterested.
They just showed the replay of the goal line clearance and I dont know that it was the wrong call. Definately was close enough to go either way.
I think your bias is clogging your judgement. Like I said it might have been a goal, but the Italians have no one to blame for the loss than themselves. They showed up today totally uninterested.
They just showed the replay of the goal line clearance and I dont know that it was the wrong call. Definately was close enough to go either way.
IM: brwnbear26
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
It was practically in the back of the net!!!brwnbear wrote:The guy was standing on the line so if his knee is a yard behind the line then... he must have 6 foot legs and be like 10 feet tall.
I think your bias is clogging your judgement. Like I said it might have been a goal, but the Italians have no one to blame for the loss than themselves. They showed up today totally uninterested.
They just showed the replay of the goal line clearance and I dont know that it was the wrong call. Definately was close enough to go either way.
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
brwnbear wrote: I think your bias is clogging your judgement.


Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
You should just be happy the USA is still in the World Cup dude....Having 2 fav teams is kinda fair weather don't you think?
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
I'd like to know what replay you have that tells you the whole ball crossed the line? The defenders knee was just behind the line and the ball hits off his knee.The whole ball has to cross the line. Show us a replay that proves you are right or else just accept Italy wasn't a quality side this year and move on.jsence2 wrote:nick wrote:ahh it's so refreshing when someone shushes up Jsence
Who shushed me, exactly? Even if he WAS offside (which he wasn't), the goal not given was legit, and that goal puts Italy through! Either goal does!
Hence, we were screwed!
As for the offsides, it's part of soccer. There are always disputed calls. I have not heard one announcer agree with you that he was onsides. You are clutching at straws.
It happens, teams lose. Move on and root for the USA.
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
brwnbear wrote:The guy was standing on the line so if his knee is a yard behind the line then... he must have 6 foot legs and be like 10 feet tall.
I think your bias is clogging your judgement. Like I said it might have been a goal, but the Italians have no one to blame for the loss than themselves. They showed up today totally uninterested.
They just showed the replay of the goal line clearance and I dont know that it was the wrong call. Definately was close enough to go either way.
Meant a foot, sorry. But if you look at it, there's easily a ball-length of space between his knee and the line when the shot comes in. Thus, if the ball hits his knee....doesn't it have to be in???
That said, I'm disappointed in Lippi. Total lack of sportsmanship, upset or not. He shouldn't have been brought back in the first place.


S14: N Texas 7-1
S15: Wake 8-5
S16-21: Washington 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 6-7
S22: Ohio 8-5
S23: ECU 12-2
S24-26: Kentucky 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Career: 102-61
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
BigRy wrote:I'd like to know what replay you have that tells you the whole ball crossed the line? The defenders knee was just behind the line and the ball hits off his knee.The whole ball has to cross the line. Show us a replay that proves you are right or else just accept Italy wasn't a quality side this year and move on.
As for the offsides, it's part of soccer. There are always disputed calls. I have not heard one announcer agree with you that he was onsides. You are clutching at straws.
It happens, teams lose. Move on and root for the USA.
The same announcers who have ripped and insulted Italy from the get-go? Ruud Gillett, who is DUTCH and thus hates the Italians? Alexi Lalas, who has pretty much spit venom anytime he talks about them? John Harkes, who is American and hates the Italians as well?
See the photo above for proof that he's onside; and the refs were TOLD before the tournament, if it is that close, GIVE THE BENEFIT TO THE ATTACKING PLAYER.

S14: N Texas 7-1
S15: Wake 8-5
S16-21: Washington 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 6-7
S22: Ohio 8-5
S23: ECU 12-2
S24-26: Kentucky 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Career: 102-61
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
The amount of flopping in the World Cup just got reduced! 

Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
J, you still have the Americans! I am looking for redemption after having my heart broken by Canada in the Olympics.
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
wow a picture... that tells us nothing since we dont even know when the ball gets played. plus thats not the right angle to call offsides
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
muhahahahatrendon wrote:J, you still have the Americans! I am looking for redemption after having my heart broken by Canada in the Olympics.
- Dolemitesooner
- Reactions:
- Posts: 4664
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 7:58 am
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
Can I has 2 national teams. Lol
Re: ***Official World Cup Talk Thread***
cdub21 wrote:wow a picture... that tells us nothing since we dont even know when the ball gets played. plus thats not the right angle to call offsides
That's a photo of the frozen feed by ESPN at the point the ball is played.
As for the goal not given, I am still looking for an angle that 1) isn't blurry and 2) shows the ball striking his knee. It's amazing how the ONE ANGLE that would show if it was a goal or not--the camera down the line on the OTHER side of the pitch--hasn't been aired or given out by FIFA. FIFA, not ESPN, dictates what camera angles and feeds everyone in the world gets. Of course if it's a goal, they aren't going to give an angle that shows it, thus having more controversy on their hands. That angle could prove or disprove both side's claims.....
I'm hoping a photographer for the press got a shot of it. I can tell by freezing the feed and slo-mo that it was in, but it's blurry as hell for taking a photo and blowing it up.
Remember how everyone in here felt when Edu's goal was disallowed the other day? Ok, take that into consideration and realize how I'm feeling right now, it's pretty much the same--except the USA got to play again, and Italy is now eliminated.
(And enough with the "two teams" shit--I was born in Italy)

S14: N Texas 7-1
S15: Wake 8-5
S16-21: Washington 9-4, 10-3, 8-5, 9-4, 7-6, 6-7
S22: Ohio 8-5
S23: ECU 12-2
S24-26: Kentucky 8-5, 5-7, 5-7
Career: 102-61