Well WHAT a surprise...not!

Love you to quote the actual law. Which you haven't once, because it disproves what you are saying.

The Bournemouth player absolutely did, which is why it was offside. Read the offside law. He makes a movement towards the ball, this is literally in the law. The reason it's in the law is because it causes the opponent to make a decision which he otherwise wouldn't have to make if the opponent being in an offside position doesn't cause him to make it.

Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.

interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or
interfering with an opponent by:
preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
challenging an opponent for the ball or
clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or
making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball


Did he play the ball before TAA touched it? No.
Did he prevent TAA playing the ball? No
Did he obstruct the line of vision of TAA? No
Did he challenge for the ball? No
Did he attempt to play the ball? No
Did he make an obvious action that impacted TAA playing the ball? No.

What you said is not in the law at all. You are making things up and stating them as fact while ignoring the actual words stated in Law 11.

comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't spoon feed me the laws because you don't know them...

The VAR check took longer because they were actually debating whether the TAA play of the ball was deliberate. Why would they do that, TooR, if it wasn't a factor, TooR???

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOne7-0Reds (U1721)
posted 28 seconds ago
Listen, I'm not about to spoon feed you the laws of the game. You're literally the only person in the world who has attempted to claim the offside goal should have been given and therefore I'd suggest you spend some time familiarising yourself with the laws, rather than telling everybody else they have it wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You couldn't spoon feed me the laws because you don't know them...

The VAR check took longer because they were actually debating whether the TAA play of the ball was deliberate. Why would they do that, TooR, if it wasn't a factor, TooR???


----------------------------------------------------------------------
They were debating whether it was deliberate and of course where the attacker made himself active with his movements. Read the law.

Read the law I have literally spoon fed them to you, but you are such a reetard they just dribbled down your chin.

Again, you fail to show anything in the law because you know you are wrong and you are arguing for the sake of it.

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 8 minutes ago
Read the law I have literally spoon fed them to you, but you are such a reetard they just dribbled down your chin.

Again, you fail to show anything in the law because you know you are wrong and you are arguing for the sake of it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Look I can't help you understand it. I can only ask you to read it. Being literally the only person debating whether it was offside or not, might be a good place for you to start thinking, before you read the law.

It would be good if you could read the law, understand it and then come back, rather than lashing out because you're the ONLY person who doesn't get it.

Your argument so far has been "read the laws" without actually showing any understanding of the law. Nothing you have said is in the law.
Please quote the law, and not just make things up.

I think they should start booking players for exaggeration and still giving the pen/free kick. To me, a dive means NO contact - for those saying ‘he hardly touched him’ - he touched him. Does the law talkabout degree of contact?