MOTD

[pudge]

They covered everything they should and were spot on with it all. And we're talking about Lawro and Mills here!

Apart from when Mills said Gouffran was not in line with the ball

 

[inbetween]

So, Mr Pardew, what did Mr Pellegrini say to you that provoked your reaction.

That will remain private.

Translation: - Nothing.

I'm sure some clever FA translator will point out that clearly Pardew was having good banter and said "you old crump" and he'll get off.

 

[Matty]

FA RETROSPECTIVE BAN..........?

Should be, won't be.

 

[BlueMooner87]

FA RETROSPECTIVE BAN..........?

Should be, won't be.

Yellow card so they deem it dealt with

 

[Matty]

FA RETROSPECTIVE BAN..........?

Should be, won't be.

Yellow card so they deem it dealt with

Change in the rules means they can upgrade a yellow to a red now if they deem it worthy.

 

[Balti]

Should be, won't be.

Yellow card so they deem it dealt with

Change in the rules means they can upgrade a yellow to a red now if they deem it worthy.

courtesy of Ben Thatcher?

 

[Tbilisi]

MOTD sacked this ball bag after his "raped him" comments,the man is vile.

 

[80s Shorts]

They covered everything they should and were spot on with it all. And we're talking about Lawro and Mills here!

Apart from when Mills said Gouffran was not in line with the ball

There is so much left to interpretation.

Yes he was in line with the ball but not blocking Harts vision.

He ducked, so was he interfering with play ?


imo offside should just be offside, no first phase , second phase, interfering or not, in the line of sight or not. Leaves too much room for error,

and certainly does not make the officials job any easier.

 

[may2011]

Can't believe not 1 word of them trying to kick us of the park.
How as Danny Mills got a job at the BBC.
"The ball wasn't in Joe Hart line of sight"
The rule is interfering,there was a player a foot away to is left,is that not interfering.
I met him and Jim Beglin in the press room away in Kiev,both buzzing that we didn't get a result,an Jim Beglin saying we could never win the league.
Now he's in the top 10 men to help us win the World Cup

 

[Balti]

They covered everything they should and were spot on with it all. And we're talking about Lawro and Mills here!

Apart from when Mills said Gouffran was not in line with the ball

There is so much left to interpretation.

Yes he was in line with the ball but not blocking Harts vision.

He ducked, so was he interfering with play ?


imo offside should just be offside, no first phase , second phase, interfering or not, in the line of sight or not. Leaves too much room for error,

and certainly does not make the officials job any easier.

fair enough if they are trotting back onto the pitch away from the ball and the action

but if they have to move to avoid contact with the ball then they're in the thick of things and should be treated as offside

right decision for me as the rule is open to interpretation