| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule 21:34 - May 28 with 860 views | ZXBlue |
Offside contains an element of intent? FFS [Post edited 28 May 2022 21:35]
|  | | |  |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:36 - May 28 with 828 views | Dubtractor |
I'd like to see Liverpool win, but how can that be offside? It's not like it was a deflection of a Madrid pass was it? It was a clean contact off his knee. |  |
| |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:36 - May 28 with 818 views | Vic |
Exactly! Glad I’m not playing now. |  |
| |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:36 - May 28 with 819 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
There was intent.
Fabinho was sliding in to get the ball, his touch sends it to benzema.
It wasnt a deflection in any shape or form.
I think the ref in the studio has it wrong, there is not way that offside would only apply if he intentionally played it to Benzema. |  |
| |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:37 - May 28 with 815 views | gtsb1966 |
I still prefer the "clear daylight" rule of days gone by. So much easier to implement. |  | | |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:37 - May 28 with 812 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:36 - May 28 by Dubtractor |
I'd like to see Liverpool win, but how can that be offside? It's not like it was a deflection of a Madrid pass was it? It was a clean contact off his knee. |
This. | |
| |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:41 - May 28 with 759 views | heavyweight |
When did the 'intentional' part come into laws, its not how I remember it from my refereeing days.
It has to be an intentional pass from an opponent for it to be onside, that has got to be a fairly rare occurrence. | | | |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:41 - May 28 with 755 views | cbower |
The rule nowadays is nuts but I think the initial touch forward is from the Madrid player and that's when he was offside, nothing to do with Fabihno touch imo. |  |
| |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:45 - May 28 with 719 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:41 - May 28 by cbower |
The rule nowadays is nuts but I think the initial touch forward is from the Madrid player and that's when he was offside, nothing to do with Fabihno touch imo. |
That would be the most sensible interpretation but the Madrid player doesn't manage to play it, there is a block as he tries to and then ball breaks before coming off Fabinho's knee. If that all comes to a forward pass from Madrid, fair enough but I didn't see it that way. Further, the ref is the studio said it is offside if it deflects off the defender but onside if the defender deliberately plays it. That bit is plain bizarre. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| My god, what a mess they have made of an effective and simple rule on 21:49 - May 28 with 696 views | stonojnr |
I dont get if all the intent stuff is involved, and seriously way to make offside even harder than handball to understand, why did the replay show the lines on the pitch suggesting there was only a toe nail in it.
because if its about intent of the pass, it doesnt matter if he is millimetres, centimetres or a metre offside surely its then about the intent of the pass ?
if Liverpool had scored that goal Im sure the assembled TV pundits, apart from Rio who is just as confused as the rest of us about it, would have been screaming that Liverpool had been robbed of a goal there. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
