I am going to pile on here and say that this was markedly different from the Brazil own goal because, unlike NZs Kerr whose back was to the play, Lloyd was clearly going for the ball, forcing the defender to play it. It was for sure offsides.

Since I’ve seen race come up in a lot of commentary, and this is a convenient platform for my Internet Voice, here are my unsolicited and unvalidated Thoughts: I recognize that there is a tendency to say things are *definitely* racist or not racist, but we need to be very clear about what we mean we talk about this.…

Everyone will happily forget if you stop trying to slip in words on the “debate” of tasteful celebrations. For the record: You jerks prefer the jerk celebrations. That’s fine. But when that is pointed out by a critical mass, the appropriate response is not “we are not jerks and you people who thought it was in poor…

It’s funny, I actually didnt notice anything remarkable about the celebration except that it seemed a lot less weird than losing your mind like a jamoke on a basically uncontested match. But I guess it was critique?

“Wrecked Hull Stranded on Banks of Mississippi Declared Total Win”

This is an illogical and dangerous extension of agency. Next you’ll be holding people accountable for what’s on a horny phone in the subway.

In fairness, Canadian identity is 30% chip flavoring.

That’s a real good point, about what an alternative rule would look like if you filled in that gap legislatively. You’re totally right that if it were too loosely phrased, basically all a defender would have to do would be to take a step towards a player in an offside position and the flag should go up, even if that…

Agreed. Not to rehash our other thread, but I think the problem here is with the text of the offside rule, which simply doesnt address this exact situation even though it is in fact a player affecting the course of the game from an offsides position.

Yea, I’m with you that it’s technically onside under the rules, and that Kerr wasn’t going for the ball. I do disagree that the defender wasn’t affected by Kerr: the only reason the defender goes up for the ball is because of her fear that an offender lurking behind her somewhere will get to the ball before her keeper…

I sort of thought levity was implied with that kind of hyperbole and the marshmallow thing. I obviously disagree, but was mainly interested to hear professional sports writer guy’s opinion on that offsides ruling. Which is why I asked the question, albeit in an (insufficiently, I guess) jokey way.

Tried to explain my thought above. I doubt Kerr made any deliberate act there, but somehow fell into like, a dimension warp of a loophole in the offside rule. If it was deliberate then that is some galaxy soccer brain shit.

I agree with you in a gut-feeling sort of way, but could not, for love or money, try to make a clear, unassailable case for it in this context based on the text of the rule. Law 11 (url below) is so hopelessly byzantine in its wording that practical application of it is impossible.

I would suggest that you also provide Sport Commentary on why Australia’s 3rd goal should have been disallowed, and whether a better offsides rule is needed, but you have no World Cup credibility following your indefensible, jingoistic stance on the Great Overcelebration Debate. I’ll bet you eat marshmallows from the…

As art, this is a Wahlberg-level Boston. It’s almost a little too on the nose, like shading towards Damon/Affleck.

Soon, celebration videos will just be one person celebrating while a thousand fans hold up their phones.

I thought Russian trolls were supposed to be less obvious?

Wenger in.

Wut?

Great, I was looking forward to several more years of master classes in silky passing and half-hearted lunge-based defending.