View Single Post
06-09-2008, 06:25 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 6,200
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by AD View Post
1- I don't believe that Panucci was injured.

2- The concept of being injured for 4 seconds is completely foreign to me.

It is pretty obvious that the officials did not stop the play because of an injury. At that point you have to consider Panucci as any player who can stand up and come back in. And therefore he's closer to the net that Van N.

The officials either (A) stop the play because of the injury, or (B)allow Panucci to leave the pitch because of the injury, or (C) they don't react to the injury.

A or B make Van N offside.

C means he's onside.

Since they decided C in the game, then he's onside.

(I'm just practicing my argumentation when I go back to work tomorrow to my italian friends...)
You don't beleive he was injured yet he stayed down at a dangerous point for his team.

He wasn't injured for 4 seconds. I said the ball went it about 4 seconds after he was off the pitch.

The argument to be made was did he go off on his own (no) and was he still part of the play (no).

You may want to re-think your argument if you are going to say he wasn't injured.

gusfring is offline