Thread for the U-20 T&T vs Italy Game (28-Sept-2009).

[King Deese]

i believe that these u20 players should have been tested by an eye doctor to make sure they are not color blind or cockeyed or seeing things that are not real because i think they are the only people on the field and in the stadium seeing a goal post in the sky or maybe jak move the goalpost or maybe everybody on the field wearing tnt colors.

a brilliant man once said: "When we play these big teams and you getting chances that is the time to ‘let go pipe’ and make it hard for them" -Glenroy Samuel. the rest of the team did not get that memo.

[King Deese]

2 players need to b between u and the goal

Not according to these rules set by fifa:

Offside Position

It is not an offence in itself to be in an offside position.

A player is in an offside position if:

• he is nearer to his opponents’ goal line than both the ball and the
second-last opponent

A player is not in an offside position if:

• he is in his own half of the fi eld of play or

• he is level with the second-last opponent or

• he is level with the last two opponents
Offence

A player in an offside position is only penalised if, at the moment the ball
touches or is played by one of his team, he is, in the opinion of the referee,
involved in active play by:

• interfering with play or

• interfering with an opponent or

• gaining an advantage by being in that position

Clarence was clearly not offside there was a defender standing on the goaline. It has to be something else other than offside.

Yes, but it was Bentick who slid the ball home....That is who the linesman called offside.

yeah, you are right, but it was bentick i meant to say. there was a defender still trying to come off his goaline, he was still between bentick, the ball, and his goaline, when bentick scored so it had to be that something else happened before he scored for the referee to call that goal off. that was a bad call by the referee he should have consulted with his linesman.

[Pointman]

Fellas, fellow forumites and brother and sister Trinis ah jus watch the highlights of the games(about 25 times) and I cannot for the life of me figure out why our first goal was disallowed. Did any of you see any infractions, fouls, offsides, man spitting on man; man stamping ah next man foot or squeezing ah man balls...anything.
Please somebody enlighten me on this brand of football officiating. I implore you.

We boys get frankomen robbed today and  it was shameful.

BTW...Jamal Gay, you have to put them chances away.Peace.

[Fyzoman]

....can somebody (who actually SAW the game) please enlighten me and tell me WHY our first goal was disallowed, please.  Was it because of a foul or for alleged offside?

a player cannot gain an advantage by waiting for the ball near the opposing goal when there are fewer than two opponents between him and the goal.
There was only one

as ah man who didn't see dis game, de explanations bout de rules and what actually happen have meh lil bit confused...anybody see de goal Tevez score today against West Ham?
could somebody who watch/tape de game, spend ah lil time and watch the FIFA flash link below and tell we if is was offside or not?

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html

[King Deese]

i don't know how else to put it so lemme clear this one up.

bentick = onside
referee = offside

referee = 1
tnt       = 0

italy = lucky
tnt   = crying foul

[truetrini]

....can somebody (who actually SAW the game) please enlighten me and tell me WHY our first goal was disallowed, please.  Was it because of a foul or for alleged offside?

a player cannot gain an advantage by waiting for the ball near the opposing goal when there are fewer than two opponents between him and the goal.
There was only one

He was not waiting for the ball, they attacked the goal, the keeper flew out to defend and was beaten.  It was hard luck there, I feel that should have been a damn goal.

[Jay10]

....can somebody (who actually SAW the game) please enlighten me and tell me WHY our first goal was disallowed, please.  Was it because of a foul or for alleged offside?

a player cannot gain an advantage by waiting for the ball near the opposing goal when there are fewer than two opponents between him and the goal.
There was only one

as ah man who didn't see dis game, de explanations bout de rules and what actually happen have meh lil bit confused...anybody see de goal Tevez score today against West Ham?
could somebody who watch/tape de game, spend ah lil time and watch the FIFA flash link below and tell we if is was offside or not?

http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html

Tevez was in line or behind the player (his team-mate) so he cant be offside in any case

[Bakes]

He was not waiting for the ball, they attacked the goal, the keeper flew out to defend and was beaten.  It was hard luck there, I feel that should have been a damn goal.

You missing the point... at the time the ball was played towards him he was between the goalkeeper and the last defender, who was on the line.  This means there was only one defender between him and the goal when the ball was played to him... according to the offside rule there must be two defenders between the attacking player and the goal when the ball is played.  He must at least be level with one of the two defenders... but can't be closer to the goal than either of them.  In this case Bentick was closer to the goal than the keeper.

The fact that the ball wasn't deliberately played to him and was a shot isn't a factor, in case some are wondering... nor is it a factor that the keeper went for the ball at the time.

Fyzoman link is ah damn good one.

[Peong]

I find that rule stupid..

Why is it there? cuz a keeper cant catch a cross and tips it to an opponent who directs the ball to a teamate who scores it with a defender on a line while ahead of the keeper... So it's there to save the keeper from embarrassment?

That is a shit rule

So basically a new "tactic" can be when defending a corner or free kick(from a distance) leave 1 man on the post and send the entire team and keeper to the half and let the attacking team score a disallowed goal


That is a shit rule...

Why does a keeper and 1 defender get so much protection in the situation? We did nothing wrong and deserved the goal... the rule is baffling ..because 2 men werent behind the keeper?  my god fifa

A corner kick is taken on the goal line.  Nobody can be offside from that kick.
So no that tactic will not work.

It's the same principle for offside that everybody is familiar with, when the goalie is the last man.
Just apply the same principle when the goalie is not the last man.

I saw this happen in a champions league game a few years ago, Real Madrid vs somebody.
A goal get disallowed and Tommy Smyth say yeh that was offside because there was only 1 defender between the striker and the goal.
I thought Tommy Smyth was mad, but I check the rules and there it was.

[Mango Chow!]

....can somebody (who actually SAW the game) please enlighten me and tell me WHY our first goal was disallowed, please.  Was it because of a foul or for alleged offside?

a player cannot gain an advantage by waiting for the ball near the opposing goal when there are fewer than two opponents between him and the goal.
There was only one

   Observer, thank you for that enlightenment, as I was not aware of that fine tuning of the offside rule "near the goal" because I guess I will need to check the laws of the game to see what FIFA define as "near."

well its anywhere over the half

Well Brother, you're right.  I was thinking all along that the 'keeper had already recovered and was back on his line I hadn't payed attention to the fact that he didn't.  In fact I AM aware of how the rule is structured, it's just that, 99.99% of the time when men get called for offside, it's not because the 'keeper is one of the men putting an opponent offside, too.  My bad,  I was taking certain things for granted and wasn't paying attention to the play.   

[frico]

Didn't the Ref point to the spot to signal a goal,I think the 3rd official waved his flag and had a word with the ref and the dicision was changed.The 3rd official comes from The Solomon Islands and is maybe one of those newbies,even the Italians were surprised,when the goal was scored no Ital complained,strange.

[Brownsugar]

He was not waiting for the ball, they attacked the goal, the keeper flew out to defend and was beaten.  It was hard luck there, I feel that should have been a damn goal.

You missing the point... at the time the ball was played towards him he was between the goalkeeper and the last defender, who was on the line.  This means there was only one defender between him and the goal when the ball was played to him... according to the offside rule there must be two defenders between the attacking player and the goal when the ball is played.  He must at least be level with one of the two defenders... but can't be closer to the goal than either of them.  In this case Bentick was closer to the goal than the keeper.

The fact that the ball wasn't deliberately played to him and was a shot isn't a factor, in case some are wondering... nor is it a factor that the keeper went for the ball at the time.

Fyzoman link is ah damn good one.

Bakes, this is the most clear explanation I've heard over the past hours since the game ended....even last night on the various news reports they still confused....damn you think with all the technology available somebody would do the research, call up a couple referee, etc. etc. and have a educated discussion about the thing....steups....

[Fyzoman]

He was not waiting for the ball, they attacked the goal, the keeper flew out to defend and was beaten.  It was hard luck there, I feel that should have been a damn goal.

You missing the point... at the time the ball was played towards him he was between the goalkeeper and the last defender, who was on the line.  This means there was only one defender between him and the goal when the ball was played to him... according to the offside rule there must be two defenders between the attacking player and the goal when the ball is played.  He must at least be level with one of the two defenders... but can't be closer to the goal than either of them.  In this case Bentick was closer to the goal than the keeper.

The fact that the ball wasn't deliberately played to him and was a shot isn't a factor, in case some are wondering... nor is it a factor that the keeper went for the ball at the time.

Fyzoman link is ah damn good one.

Bakes, this is the most clear explanation I've heard over the past hours since the game ended....even last night on the various news reports they still confused....damn you think with all the technology available somebody would do the research, call up a couple referee, etc. etc. and have a educated discussion about the thing....steups....

I agree Sugar.. ah still eh see de goal but Bakes make it clear...maybe somebody should send de media de damn FIFA link!

[Pointman]

99.99% of the time that goal would have stood. That is a f*cked up call. Hard luck young warriors.Italy was lucky yesterday, not the better team.

[Bakes]

He was not waiting for the ball, they attacked the goal, the keeper flew out to defend and was beaten.  It was hard luck there, I feel that should have been a damn goal.

You missing the point... at the time the ball was played towards him he was between the goalkeeper and the last defender, who was on the line.  This means there was only one defender between him and the goal when the ball was played to him... according to the offside rule there must be two defenders between the attacking player and the goal when the ball is played.  He must at least be level with one of the two defenders... but can't be closer to the goal than either of them.  In this case Bentick was closer to the goal than the keeper.

The fact that the ball wasn't deliberately played to him and was a shot isn't a factor, in case some are wondering... nor is it a factor that the keeper went for the ball at the time.

Fyzoman link is ah damn good one.

Bakes, this is the most clear explanation I've heard over the past hours since the game ended....even last night on the various news reports they still confused....damn you think with all the technology available somebody would do the research, call up a couple referee, etc. etc. and have a educated discussion about the thing....steups....

I agree Sugar.. ah still eh see de goal but Bakes make it clear...maybe somebody should send de media de damn FIFA link!

I honestly cyah take too much credit fuh it, I juss as loss as the next man on some ah dem offside calls.  Ah took the time to watch the FIFA explanation from the link though, and although I think some of it is shit... I understand the rule a lot better now.  No simpler way to put it than to say the attacking player can't be closer to the goal than the last two defenders when the ball is played.

From that link I learn a thing or two as well... like a lot of times you'll see a man get a pass and at the time the pass was made he was in line with the last defender but leaning forward as he's taking off for the pass.  I used to complain that if you look at the feet, where he was, that he's onside.  According to the rules, forget where the feet are, if a players body is anywhere across that imaginary line established by the defender then he's offside.  That means if his feet are in line, but his head or torso leaning across that imaginary line that puts him closer to the goal and he's offside.  There is an exception for hands though... if all of his body is in line with the last defender and only his hands are "offside" then he's not offside.

To me all ah dat is parsing things too closely... should just leave it where the man feet are and fuhget all this whey he head and shoulders and elbow thing is.

[Mose]

Yuh know after all de ole talk I see pass on this forum about who know football and who never kick a lime, it really surprising to see de amount of people who doh know de offside rule.

[dwolfman]

I shock the offside discussion went on that long. The rule was completely stated and then relevant parts stated. What Bakes say that was different from what was said by more than one poster on more than one occassion in more than one match related thread? At any rate, many of us arguing on the basis of wanting the goal to stand and as a result looking for all kinds of reasons to justify why it should have been allowed. Imagine man even forgetting the fact that a corner is taken from the baseline so you can't be offside from that kick. It's cool to see us behind the boys so whole heartedly, but really we stand to gain nothing by remaining ignorant of a rule that has been exactly how it is now since I'm a little boy. They have made some revisions/amendments to remove subjectivity, but the basic principle that is offside is the same.

99.99% of the time that goal would have stood. That is a f*cked up call. Hard luck young warriors.Italy was lucky yesterday, not the better team.

Again, nice that we are 100% behind our team, but did you watch the entire match? Italy were the better team, even statistically (possession, shots on goal, etc). I'll agree that we didn't look like minnows and put Italy under enormous pressure to win the match, but we need to be realistic and accept the performance for what it was.

[truetrini]

Hard luck young Warriors!

That rule really irks me, especially under the circumstances!

All in a split second...man attacked the goal, keeper scrambles out to defend, shot comes in..turned into goal...goal signaled and then disallowed.

Young attacker should have run out with the keeper to keep himself onside.

Tough thing there...rules is rules right?