Does anyone believe that the second Uruguay

[Peter R]

goal was offside?

I am reading that technically it was. here is the link. I'm doing my own research.
http://wired868.com/2014/06/19/urugu...e-was-offside/

[Karl]

When the Uruguayan player headed it on...

it appeared to me Suarez was on-side. The ball then hit Gerrard...that did not change a thing! On-side! Goal!

I shall take another look in a few and return (tomorrow) to post findings if different from the above.

[Tilla]

You can be in an offside position, but if you are not involved in the play, then you would not/should not be deemed to be offsideby the referee. You have to be in the offside position and involved in the play for the ref to adjudge you being offside.

That said, while Suarez was in an offside position, if the ball were played to him by a Uruguay player, then the ref would call him offside, as he would then be involved in the play. It so happened that the ball to Suarez came off the head of an England player (Gerrard) before it got to him. The goal resulting from this play cannot therefore be ruled offside.

[Stonigut]

Haha it matters not at all, a England wasted their talent and effort totally. How can you play two attack minded dm's with weak defensive credentials and do it twice, they are good attackers but Henderson should not have played either game, defense was suspect from the get go and Gerard was suspect on defense from the get go and they go in and do the same thing twice and get scored on four times.

At what point do they realize this is the World Cup and not some pickup friendly, very frustrating, this side has the talent to do it all.

How does a talented, skillful, productive player like lallana sit on the bench while wellbeck and Barkley get more game, absolute nonsense selection.

[Peter R]

Karl/Tilla/Stoni, did you read the article I posted?

I put it up not because I'm batting for England, BUT because I would like clarity on the confusion that is the "offside law".

Is it a fact that there was an amendment to the law last year? The article links a pdf file which is a FIFA letter to members of FIFA :http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affe...14_neutral.pdf

The amendment says gaining an advantage which is a no no is among others things is as follows
:1 gaining an advantage by being in that position" means playing a ball
I) that rebounds or is deflected to him off the goal post, crossbar or an
opponent having been in an offside position
11) that rebounds, is deflected or is played to hm from a deliberate save by an opponent having been in an offside position

I actually am wondering about the veracity of this directive?? Is this letter a hoax? If it is not then the second goal that the Mexican Dos Santos scored that we thought was onside, is in fact offside... as is the second goal scored by Suarez.

Am I missing something, or is that letter a bunch of hogwash that some prankster put uot there?

[Peter R]

There is a distinction made between " deflection, rebound and deliberate save" and a pass back by the defender. The latter would result in no offside, whereas " deflection etc." would.

I still am not sure what to think, even though you three gents have said it was not offside.

[Peter R]

What is a "deliberate save" ?

[Gamma]

I was thinking it was a brilliant assist by Gerard out of habit.

[Peter R]

That it was.. a perfect pass; yuh tink seh? no sah, Stevie G wouldna duh dat... him jus lucky him is not Colombian ...