Linesman rob trinidad a goal...Trinidad should have been up

[pHoQrY]

warlord...take a seat young grasshopper....

What better opposition has Haiti played...as a matter of fact...Haiti has played worst opposition than we have...Honduras not going play we...we in the same WCQ zone...so tell me...who should we look to play...Guatemala, El Salvador...oh...we already beat them up...

Our next WCQ match is against caribbean opposition aint it? Are we to overlook this fact? Doing so would be putting the carriage infront of the donkey bredren...

grasshopper...creep, then walk, then run!

Earlier we had tried to get a game with Argentina...who decided that USA had more money and would be more of a reward for them...so what did they do? They opted to play USA. We are too far down the pecking order, and the distasteful view of jamaica has soured alot of federations (Boxhill fi GWEH) BUT we need to play...and play frequently...i say choose whosoever wanna play and beat up who fi get beat up! just mek sure wi play atleast 2 matches a month...yu zimi

blessed

[Brush]

That youtube highlight suggest to me that the referee blew his whistle long before the player kicked the ball. Ricketts made no attempt at the ball and the defender tracking back looked anything but desperate.

[Time]

I hear you, your 'dull and ignorant post' post justifies itself. Brilliant, simply brilliant.

[Runawaybay]

I don't recall CB being on the sidelines yesterday. For the record I have never been critical of the efforts of CB. He undoubtedly has great love and dedication to Jamaica's football. I was referring to Saturday's game and the present campaign. Whatever ones views on Simoes' tactics yesterday, we obviously created enough chances to have won the game. Had those chances been taken that is.

[Jamaica2099]

How did USA and Trinidad convince England to play a friendly. How did Canada get a friendly wit Brazil? What exactly is your point? Ivory Coast isnt the only quality team in the world are they? Im sure if we worked hard enough we couldve really tried to get a top 10 opponent.

Ivory Coast pointed out our low rankings. USA ranks in the top 20. T&T's match was a political fete with England looking for votes to host the 2018 World Cup.
What! You forgot already what Jack Warner said about England.

[Jamaica2099]

Simoes is simply building morale by playing CONCACAF teams since its only CONCACAF teams that are only involved in CONCACAF World Cup qualifiers.

Now I want to hear what the players thought about the match against T&T to give me a fair perspective.

[Culture Sound]

That youtube highlight suggest to me that the referee blew his whistle long before the player kicked the ball. Ricketts made no attempt at the ball and the defender tracking back looked anything but desperate.

my youth you 100% right...this just prove to me say nuff people don't know bout ball...the rule say if the player is deemed interfering with the play by the ref it is an offside...unu nay sayers nuh blind...unu never see the offside player a move towards the ball...come on man...anybody that know bout ball know say the right call was made

[JaMekAn]

After reviewing the game.....the goal was definately off side! He made an attempt to go after the ball whilst in an off side position!!

[Reggae-Fan]

Warlord, you must be joking. It should be clear to everyone that the ony reason we are playing the likes of St. vincent, T&T etc in these warm up game is because they prepare us for the Bahamas game. You conveniently forget that we have played the likes of Guatemala, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Chile etc in recent months. You seem to forget that T&T recently played a number of games vs Grenada, Barbados, Guadeloupe, Guyana etc.

[Reggae-Fan]

I agree but Simoes' rotation of players is not that great. I mean Trinidad squad was mostly a young team rebuilding and we didnt create any clear cut chances. They were half chances and people like Fuller should not be even considered for this team. He is not of internantional standard. King is a poacher and we need a player like that but Burton? Why are we going back to 96?

We didnt create any clear-cut chances vs T&T? LOL. I listened the game...the comnmentators thought T&T was lucky not to have lost by 3 or more goals. You sounding like u a Trini under the quiet.

[Naminirt]

boy reggae-fan trying to feel good about yuh team but focus on honduras cananda and mexico

[Time]

Teach them sister

Well, based on what I heard, the referee had the right to call offside. The commentator was saying the player was not offside because the player with the ball did not make the pass. I am not sure the commentator was correctly interpreting of the rule. The referee can call the play offside if in his opinion the player in the offside position was involved in the play, even if he did not have the ball or have the ball passed to him. Being involved in the play does not necessarily mean he was receiving a passed ball either. His presence in a position and how the play is shaping and the players affect on the defenders could determine whether that the player was involved in the play or not.

The same commentators also said the referees robbed Jamaica of a scoring opportunity by calling it offside when it was not.

... The commentator went as far to state said that the linesman anticipated the pass as if the only way offside could have occured is if the pass was made...It may be as simple as the player in the offside position blocking the goal keeper line of sight...

[Warlord]

[quote=pHoQrY;106621]

yu nuh si a offside that...he went to the ball...getting involve with the play...TnT commentators nuh understand offside?

What is clear is that you do NOT know the rules on being "offside" in football.

The player can only be deemed offside if he is clearly interefering with play, interferes wit the opoonent or trying to gain a personal advantage.

The player that was called for the "offside" didnt do any of those things especially your claims that he tried to prevent the defender from getting to the ball. That is just poor officiating mi friend.


See it yah...


New Laws of the Game
(fifa.com 2/28/05)
FIFA will be supervising the first official tests of technical systems that could determine whether the ball has fully crossed the goal-line at the FIFA U-17 World Championship 2005 to be held in Peru from 16 September to 2 October. This decision was reached by the International Football Association Board (IFAB) at its 119th Annual General Meeting near Cardiff, Wales, on 26 February.
The Board also clarified the current offside rule by further defining the meaning of being "actively involved in play" and decided to impose stricter sanctions for any tackles deemed to be endangering the safety of an opponent. From now on, match officials must also show the red card to players who make dangerous tackles from the front or the side.
"Was that a goal?" is a question that always seems to be on the lips of fans, players, coaches and referees, and not just since England's infamous third goal during the 1966 FIFA World Cup™ final at Wembley. In recent years, the Board has often debated whether technology could help match officials make quick decisions in unclear situations regarding whether a goal has been scored or not.

At its meeting at the Miskin Manor hotel, the Board listened to a presentation by long-term FIFA partner adidas, who together with the German company, Cairos AG and the German Fraunhofer Institute have developed a system with a prototype of a ball with an embedded electronic chip. The presentation also outlined the necessary stadium infrastructure and demonstrated how the entire system would work. Following the presentation, the International F.A. Board decided to allow the system to be tested in competitive football and empowered FIFA to do so at the U-17 world championship in Peru.
FIFA President Joseph S. Blatter welcomed the Board's decision. "Not a day goes by without technology making progress. We therefore have a duty to at least examine whether new technology could be used in football. The Board had already agreed to test goal-line technology, provided that the systems were available. The critical issue, however, will be to ensure that such technology would not affect the Laws' universal nature or the authority of match officials."
Law 11 - Offside - was also the subject of several proposals, and as a result, by introducing the new International F.A. Board Decision 2 for Law 11, the Board also clarified when a player is to be regarded as "actively involved in play":

" Interfering with play means playing or touching the ball passed or touched by a team mate.
" Interfering with an opponent means preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which, in the opinion of the referee, deceives or distracts an opponent.
" Gaining an advantage by being in an offside position means playing a ball that rebounds to him off a post or crossbar or playing a ball that rebounds to him off an opponent having been in an offside position.
Moreover, the Board clarified the explanation of a player being offside "if he is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second last opponent". As a result, the position of any part of the player's head, body or feet will be the deciding factor, and not the player's arms.
Further IFAB decisions:
" With respect to Law 3 (The number of players), in National A team matches, up to a maximum of six substitutes may be used. In all other matches, a greater number of substitutes may be used provided that the teams concerned reach agreement on a maximum number and the referee is informed before the match.
" Regarding Law 12 (Fouls and Misconduct), once a referee has terminated a match, he cannot change a decision. However, the referee has the authority to impose disciplinary sanctions from the moment he enters the field of play until he leaves the pitch after the final whistle.
" In relation to Law 15 (Throw-in), in future all opponents must be at least two metres from the thrower until the ball is in play.
A number of proposals, such as the Football Association of Wales' proposal that a player could only be offside when in the opponents' penalty area, were withdrawn before the meeting.
The International F.A. Board is composed of the football associations of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who each have a vote, together with FIFA, who represent the other 201 member associations with four votes. For a proposal to succeed, it must receive the support of at least three-quarters of those present and entitled to vote. Changes to the Laws of the Game come into force as from 1 July following the Annual General Meeting.
In accordance with the principle of rotation, the 119th Annual General Meeting of the International F.A. Board was held in Wales by one of the four British associations. Next year, the IFAB will convene on 4 March.
More: FIFA Memorandum regarding offsides:



I bolded the part that defines the rules, now go back and review the clip and tell mi wat u see.

[Bricktop]

What is clear is that you do NOT know the rules on being "offside" in football.

The player can only be deemed offside if he is clearly interefering with play, interferes wit the opoonent or trying to gain a personal advantage.

The player that was called for the "offside" didnt do any of those things especially your claims that he tried to prevent the defender from getting to the ball. That is just poor officiating mi friend.

The offside player was not interfering with play? The whistle should have been blown the instant the player made a move towards the ball.

[Peter R]

And Trinidad better focus on Bermuda...from reports I heard the the T&T team as seen in the JA match not up to par.

pr