Gooberlx2
Lifer
- May 4, 2001
- 15,381
- 6
- 91
The reason that I think he shouldn't be off-sides in that situation is that he already retrieved the ball, on the advance, in an on-sides position.
He establishes onsides in the face of the Mexican defense--he essentially beats the other team in a legitimate fashion. It is now on the Mexican defense to stop him--for the goal keeper to handle that ball, which did not happen. I can't rationalize how that Argentinian player is suddenly required to abandon his legally-established advantage in reaction to Mexico making such a huge mistake in defense. Besides the fact that the Argentinian player suddenly has to make that decision to jump back on sides within the 3 seconds that that play happened (or, I suppose he is expected not to touch the ball?)...it just doesn't make sense to me.
I guess I can understand having been confused not completely knowing the rule...but that's the rule. I guess I think it works fine. Yeah, he beat the defense but got stuck by the keeper. He shoulda hauled back onsides or taken his ass out of play. Defense can always use the rule as strategy to trap the offense, as they should (not that it mattered in this instance anyway). Tevez's past accomplishment of beating the defense bears no reward for the present moment of play.
I assumed that it was like off sides in hockey, which I think would make more sense for soccer. (though hockey is puck first, and always first; vs soccer = from the moment of kick, the attacker can pass defenders before the ball passes them, correct?)
Yes.
Last edited: