Oral Tracey continues in his ignorance

[Mosiah]

Just watched Sports Commentary where Oral is maintaining, to the ridiculous end, that some law about impeding the goalkeeper is subject to interpretation, context, and whatever else. TVJ did not help when, during its sports news, they also mentioned this "impeding" thing as the reason why the goal was called back. All that English did was stand about 5 feet from the goalie, blocking his view, and jumping directly in the flight of the ball, IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION! Were he standing by either goalpost in an offside position, it would have been a goal, because the ball flew in the middle of the goal, but that happened to be where English was standing, right before the goalkeeper, IN AN OFFSIDE POSITION!

Does Oral realise that there is more "impeding" taking place during corner kicks? Unless the goalkeeper is prevented (impeded?) from going for the ball, then he can be challenged by all sorts of players and there will be no "impedance" call. And there can be no offside directly from a corner kick. In the case involving English over the weekend, the offside rule is in effect, and that's what he was penalised for, not for "impeding"! Better dem say he was interfering with the play, because he really didn't impede anyone.

I consider Oral more than an acquaintance. Wi nah go pass each odda a road. I must get him to stop embarrasing himself on this issue. He can't be more wrong!

But is not just him one. Our two stations, CVM and TVJ, are also displaying their ignorance about the rule!

[Bricktop]

Well if he was blocking the keepers line of sight he should definitely have been adjudged offside. Is there any video of this incident available?

[Karl]

Well if he was blocking the keepers line of sight he should definitely have been adjudged offside. Is there any video of this incident available?

Perhaps Lionpaw will help us!

[OJ]

expalin to him that the rule is if a player is an offside position and is active thus he will be called. The player can impede the goalkeeper all he wants but he cant do it if he is offside.

[Karl]

expalin to him that the rule is if a player is an offside position and is active thus he will be called. The player can impede the goalkeeper all he wants but he cant do it if he is offside.

Yuh shudda leave out di las sen-tance!

[1of1]

I heard that there was a defender at one of the posts , is this true?

[OJ]

did not say obstruct

[Lionpaw]

Mi cant help unnuh. Free paper bun. I can only post international games now.

The problem with Tracey is that he cannot be a man and admit he is wrong. His first argument was that the waterhouse player didn't impede the goalkeeper. When he saw the rule book with the illustration he completely switched gears and argued that the ref put the spectators life in danger by not allowing the goal, as if the referees are responsible for the safety of the spectators. The more he argues about it, is the more his ignorance shines through.

[Mosiah]

**************** Lie!