Ref Watch

[SatOnTheWall]

Where was Coote watching var from?

Up baconface’s arse.

 

[SatOnTheWall]

World class waffling from Mark Clattenberg and Frank Leboeuf setting him straight.

Surely nobody believes a word that come out of clattenburg’s mouth. He’s as bent as a corkscrew.

 

[Txiki Txiki Bang Bang]

World class waffling from Mark Clattenberg and Frank Leboeuf setting him straight.

Now I see why the Egyptians wanted his head. Shady bastard

 

[Goater=Legend]

I'm pretty sure Howard Webb was on talksport talking about how he wants the officials on the pitch to make the decision and yet the linesman can clearly see the Grealish 'handball' didn't raise his flag and Coote overruled him.

 

[halfcenturyup]

Rag twat's arm as he was coming down from his jump half a second later. I suppose he was also trying to make himself bigger and that's not a natural position. It's corruption at the very core.

We need to get away from this idea that the law states that Grealish handles the ball. It doesn't. This is the law:

It is an offence if a player

• touches the ball with their hand/arm when it has made their body unnaturally bigger. A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation. By having their hand/arm in such a position, the player takes a risk of their hand/arm being hit by the ball and being penalised.

The idea that it is handball according to the law if a players arm is above the shoulder just isn't true. That is just an interpretation. For it to be an offence according to the law, the arm above the shoulder has to be in an unnatural position.

It is just another example of referees trying to make decisions factual when they are, as are almost all decisions in football, subjective.

 

[halfcenturyup]

World class waffling from Mark Clattenberg and Frank Leboeuf setting him straight.

That was interesting at least. But again, the interpretation of trying to make these decisions factual is just wrong. The law doesn't make it factual, the law makes it subjective. It's the referee's interpretations that try to make it factual and that is the problem.

Why not make any tackle over the ankle a red card? That's factual. Why all the subjectivity and inconsistency around it? Because it would be stupid. Just as it's stupid to try and make handballs factual.

 

[North Wales Blue]

That was interesting at least. But again, the interpretation of trying to make these decisions factual is just wrong. The law doesn't make it factual, the law makes it subjective. It's the referee's interpretations that try to make it factual and that is the problem.

Why not make any tackle over the ankle a red card? That's factual. Why all the subjectivity and inconsistency around it? Because it would be stupid. Just as it's stupid to try and make handballs factual.

Agree with you. So many of the laws are open to interpretation, which makes them subjective. VAR only adds another subjective opinion into the equation. Far from clearing decisions up, it makes it creates more confusion!

 

[BlueBas]

Thought the ref last night was excellent! Fair to both sides and consistent. And great that VAR was not involved once!

 

[Bluearmy]

Thought the ref last night was excellent! Fair to both sides and consistent. And great that VAR was not involved once!

Gonna have to watch it back but thought he gave them everything and let them off with snide tackles all night

 

[KS55]

Gonna have to watch it back but thought he gave them everything and let them off with snide tackles all night

He fell for their shithousery a few times