USA 1 Refs 0

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
The rule states offense should get the benefit of the doubt. Why is this never applied? Dempsey was not offside, but should have gotten benefit of the doubt.

What rule is this? Have you even read the rules? There is no rule about "benefit of the doubt" anywhere in the official rules for anything. Go and download the Laws of the Game and find that rule for me. It does not exist.

Maybe this will help you:
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html

I personally believed that he was onside the moment that I saw it and on the replay, but what Palynka has shown about his knee being ahead of the player does look more like he is offside. I have no idea for sure as the camera angle isn't perfect, so I can't dispute the decision. Offside it is.

Originally posted by hopscotch
What rule is this? Have you even read the rules? There is no rule about "benefit of the doubt" anywhere in the official rules for anything. Go and download the Laws of the Game and find that rule for me. It does not exist.

Maybe this will help you:
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html

I personally believed that he was onside the mome ...[text shortened]... for sure as the camera angle isn't perfect, so I can't dispute the decision. Offside it is.

When I used to ref we were always instructed to give offense benefit of the doubt. So you really think ref saw the knee forward, but could not see the elbowing of USA player later in the match? you delude yourself. Or maybe USA's player's pinkie toe wsa a smidgeon ahead? Really! Player was not offside, plain and simple. If the refs were such experts at minutiae games would be called way better than they have been thus far.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
When I used to ref we were always instructed to give offense benefit of the doubt. So you really think ref saw the knee forward, but could not see the elbowing of USA player later in the match? you delude yourself. Or maybe USA's player's pinkie toe wsa a smidgeon ahead? Really! Player was not offside, plain and simple. If the refs were such experts at minutiae games would be called way better than they have been thus far.

I'm sure the rules are different when you're refereeing a bunch of six year olds.

The linesman had the perfect view of the situation. Our camera angle does not. Plain and simple. You have no grounds to make a claim that he was wrong.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
When I used to ref we were always instructed to give offense benefit of the doubt. So you really think ref saw the knee forward, but could not see the elbowing of USA player later in the match? you delude yourself. Or maybe USA's player's pinkie toe wsa a smidgeon ahead? Really! Player was not offside, plain and simple. If the refs were such experts at minutiae games would be called way better than they have been thus far.

Well spoken scacchipazzo - I am not qualified to confirm your opinion as I don't know the football rules as well as you would, being an ex ref, but what you said makes sense to me.

USA was robbed.

Originally posted by scacchipazzo
When I used to ref we were always instructed to give offense benefit of the doubt. So you really think ref saw the knee forward, but could not see the elbowing of USA player later in the match? you delude yourself. Or maybe USA's player's pinkie toe wsa a smidgeon ahead? Really! Player was not offside, plain and simple. If the refs were such experts at minutiae games would be called way better than they have been thus far.

Buy aren't you the one asking for minutiae when you contest a borderline decision so vehemently? Hopscotch says it's so close that we should give the linesman the benefit of the doubt.

Originally posted by Palynka
Buy aren't you the one asking for minutiae when you contest a borderline decision so vehemently? Hopscotch says it's so close that we should give the linesman the benefit of the doubt.

He was looking the wrong way, at his new rolex.