offside - bollx

Was his leg level or in front? In front.

Supposed to be daylight, not level - and no way was that offside.

If you were to fire a laser at any part of his body that was in front he would be down the prosthetic limb shop on Monday.

unlucky on your losses mate.

The 2005 edition of the Laws of the Game included a new International Football Association Board decision that stated being "nearer to an opponent's goal line" meant that "any part of his head, body or feet is nearer to his opponents' goal line than both the ball and the second-last opponent (the last opponent typically being the goalkeeper). The arms are not included in this definition."[1]  This is taken to mean that any part of the attacking player named in this decision has to be past the part of the second-last defender closest to his goal line (excluding the arms) and past the part of the ball closest to the defenders' goal line.

Unlucky on your lack of knowledge of the game. Haven't had a bet. Just hate Holland and their flukey wins. Backed Mexico.

Haven't had a bet.

As Victor Meldrew would say....I don't believe it...

Well you should have....on Holland Large like I did!

I think Scuttler is correct however the lino should always give the benefit of doubt to the attacker

Commentator screaming for off-side was still a disgrace FFS

Daylight is a myth. Anyone quoting that has no idea about the laws of the game. It was a very tight decision. He was marginally offside, tho if an assistant is unsure he is entitled to give the attacker the benefit of the doubt. A marginal decision that could be argued either way.

Commentator screaming for off-side was still a disgrace FFS

Agreed.

The commentator corrected himself. He thought Van Persie was well offside til he saw the replay. once he saw the replay he agreed it was marginal. he was right to say Van Persie was active.

Shrewdbury's lack of knowledge of the laws of the game is more than made up for by his betting prowess and modesty.