Liverpool (H) | PL | Post Match Thread

TheBeautifulGame said:
S isn't required nor is it prohibited.
Click to expand...
Find me ONE example of the word OFFSIDE having an “s” on the end in The Laws of the Game.

I’ll save you the trouble…there isn’t one!

The ONLY time one would say or write the word “offsides” is if referring to more than one offside, as in using the plural, and even then it would be rare and clunky.

“There were 7 offsides in the game” sounds less correct than “There were 7 offside decisions given in the game.”

Regardless, the notion that you can say a word unless it is “prohibited” somewhere is ridiculous.

In FIFA’s (IFAB’s) Laws of the Game, Law 11 is OFFSIDE. The word “offsides” does not appear anywhere in that law.

Now, were there any other things you’re wrong about that you’d like correcting?
 
Last edited:
BringBackSwales said:
Ignore the attention seeking ****, there’s page after page of it from him, her, it, all over the forum
Click to expand...

Aye. A nice little by-product of all this though is that every time a goal goes in from a header like this from a corner, it is going to remind the skiprats of this incident and this game. Lovely.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
LOL Light up the candles like them dippers right and have an actual vigil over this. This sort of thing wasn't on my Bingo card but I learned a long time ago about sticks and stones. You know full well that example qualifies as line of vision obstruction whereas the others do not. "But he's 6 ft 4" You've made some vague arguments like this, as if being above a certain height would deny any such obstruction.

The reason why I press the issue in situations like this is that I really do not think you are being fully honest here or seeing this clearly. All I'm trying to do is to enhance your clarity of the situation. You have every right to reject my view of the incident, but it is incumbent upon you to effectively counter my points and make your own coherent arguments that stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...
Sticks and stones you say…..did you use them to attack the City team bus?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
You have every right to reject my view of the incident, but it is incumbent upon you to effectively counter my points and make your own coherent arguments that stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

What on earth makes you think ANYBODY has to justify themselves to you by arguing the toss with you?

You appear to have confused yourself with someone we should all give a fuck about.
 
shemnel said:
I have to say, it is this reason why i am unsure why more goals aren't chalked off where a player is hanging about near the keeper. and i include goals given for us as well. Surely, in an instinctive and close range situation such as a save, just someone's presence is enough to be interfering.

i'm not going to be popular for this but i think, e.g., Silva's interference at Wolves was enough to chalk off Stones' late goal.
Click to expand...

All goals should be disallowed for obstruction where a player is standing in front of the keeper with no intention other than to stop him getting to the ball. It's pretty easy to judge if the offending player is 5'6" and the keeper is 6'3", which it always is because the big lads are used to win the ball. At the very least if the midget is still hanging around the keeper when the ball is headed he should be offside for not getting right out of the way. At least Silva was making an effort to get out of the way.
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It has been widely reacted to by the whole of the football world and the sense I get is that the majority of neutrals and pundits all seem to agree that the goal should have stood. I don't know what has caused you to conclude that it is only the Dippers reacting and that everyone else has concluded that it was ruled out. It might seem that way but that does not appear to be the case from my vantage point.
Click to expand...
Just like the whole football world agreed that Rashford was offside and interfering with play at the swamp 2 years ago, but what did we do, got on with it and won the fucking league
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
LOL Light up the candles like them dippers right and have an actual vigil over this. This sort of thing wasn't on my Bingo card but I learned a long time ago about sticks and stones. You know full well that example qualifies as line of vision obstruction whereas the others do not. "But he's 6 ft 4" You've made some vague arguments like this, as if being above a certain height would deny any such obstruction.

The reason why I press the issue in situations like this is that I really do not think you are being fully honest here or seeing this clearly. All I'm trying to do is to enhance your clarity of the situation. You have every right to reject my view of the incident, but it is incumbent upon you to effectively counter my points and make your own coherent arguments that stand up to scrutiny.
Click to expand...

Who dis?
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It has been widely reacted to by the whole of the football world and the sense I get is that the majority of neutrals and pundits all seem to agree that the goal should have stood. I don't know what has caused you to conclude that it is only the Dippers reacting and that everyone else has concluded that it was ruled out. It might seem that way but that does not appear to be the case from my vantage point.
Click to expand...
How many posts are you going to make on this subject??? Why are you so obsessed with trying to say it should have stood? You're starting to sound like a dipper tbh
 
warringtonblue said:
Just like the whole football world agreed that Rashford was offside and interfering with play at the swamp 2 years ago, but what did we do, got on with it and won the fucking league
Click to expand...
Not to mention the Cup Finsl non handball.Should have requested the audio from both,like the Dippers.Now,that would have been interesting !
 
I think we need a debate about the injustice of it all towards Liverpool fc. The poor souls having decision after decision going against them, it really isn't fair. Oh fuck em then the whinging cunts!
 
TheBeautifulGame said:
It has been widely reacted to by the whole of the football world and the sense I get is that the majority of neutrals and pundits all seem to agree that the goal should have stood. I don't know what has caused you to conclude that it is only the Dippers reacting and that everyone else has concluded that it was ruled out. It might seem that way but that does not appear to be the case from my vantage point.
Click to expand...
You don't have a 'vantage point'. You have an opinion, and pretty much everyone thinks it's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top