Ref Watch

[Jesus H Gabz]

Having now read Dale Johnson's article, which contains the below line

'Information provided by the Premier League and PGMOL was used in this story'

It appears Atwell gave the goal alone and the wording of the law gave VAR no opportunity to intervene.

I'm now keen to see how this information being made widespread knowledge will effect set pieces etc, especially as there's now a clear example that the law means you can be clearly offside, cause a distraction etc, but provided you don't make physical contact with a defender or the ball, it's irrelevant.

Certainly worth trying it once or twice.

It would, no reason why when we have a central deep lying free kick in our own half, and the opposition set a high line, we can’t have our two wide players 20-30yds offside, giving us two options to play a long ball over the top for a couple of players to run on to, while said wide player chaperones the ball (till the cavalry arrives) he can also feint to play the ball and hold his arms aloft for personal protection…..Now that sounds absolutely pathetic! Anyone ‘Still’ not understanding why it was offside needs to understand it’s rules/laws/lack of application like this that will ruin football. Remember the European Super league debacle? This to me feels like that, people with power money & influence are taking the game too far away from what we all understand it to be in order to squeeze the orange once more

 

[Paladin]

The offside law is fucked but whats worrying and what has come out of this debacle is that officials can now hide behind 'subjective view' and they will be backed by the PGMOL.
So next weekend if the same incident occurs with 2 different teams the referee can basically call it how he likes.
If ever you were in doubt about corruption in football , subjective is the new buzzword used to bend the rules

And it's complete nonsense.

There are explanations in the existing laws that already cover the Rashford scenario. The following describe ways of interfering with an opponent:

1. Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

2. Challenging an opponent for the ball or

3. Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

4. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

On point 1, Rashford prevents Akanji from being able to play the ball, and he is in Akanji's line of vision.

Point 2 Rashford challenges Akanji and Walker for the ball.

Point 3 is true if Rashford is deemed to be playing the ball due to his proximity to it.

Point 4. His obvious action of running with the ball alters Akanji's route to the ball. Ask if Rashford had stayed still, would Akanji have had a more direct path to the ball, and been favourite to get to it before Fernandes.

And if all this wasn't enough, there are 14 examples laid down in the laws to help referees in their judgement of offsides. The ninth pretty much covers the Rashford scenario.

This isn't subjective at all. Subjective is just the word they use to make it sound as though Attwell was justified. It's damage limitation.

And in my view, Cann and Oliver are equally to blame.

 

[Blue Pete]

While the 'goal' was clearly offside. I also don't understand how the young left back was allowed to repeated foul Mahrez from behind without a card.

 

[cheekybids]

And it's complete nonsense.

There are explanations in the existing laws that already cover the Rashford scenario. The following describe ways of interfering with an opponent:

1. Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

2. Challenging an opponent for the ball or

3. Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

4. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

On point 1, Rashford prevents Akanji from being able to play the ball, and he is in Akanji's line of vision.

Point 2 Rashford challenges Akanji and Walker for the ball.

Point 3 is true if Rashford is deemed to be playing the ball for to his proximity to it.

Point 4. His obvious action of running with the ball alters Akanji's route to the ball. Ask if Rashford had stayed still, would Akanji have had a more direct path to the ball, and been favourite to get to it before Fernandes.

And if all this wasn't enough, there are 14 examples laid down in the laws to help referees in their judgement of offsides. The ninth pretty much covers the Rashford scenario.

This isn't subjective at all. Subjective is just the word they use to make it sound as though Attwell was justified. It's damage limitation.

And in my view, Cann and Oliver are equally to blame.

They actually think that fans & players are thick. They believe only referees have the ability to understand the laws. Well it didn’t used to be like that.

 

[SebastianBlue]

While the 'goal' was clearly offside. I also don't understand how the young left back was allowed to repeated foul Mahrez from behind without a card.

It met the 3rd condition for the repeated infringement rule under Fouls and Violations:

3. Is the player wearing a red shirt.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Was VAR involved? Wasn't VAR involved?

How can Attwell have given the goal without asking VAR if Rashford made any contact with the ball?
It doesn't make any sense.
Surely VAR played SOME part in the decision-making process?

Or did he just take the players' opinions as definitive?

Rags - "He never touched it, honest guv!"
Attwell - "Cool, I'll take your word for it, it's a goal then"

All these after-the-event "VAR protocol explanations" and "subjective law application reasonings" are just a load of bullshit in order to blow a load of smoke around to cover up the nonsense biased/corrupt decision that they chose to give.

Still fucking furious 3 days later.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

Did I actually see the FIFA badge on his chest? He must be really corrupt to get that one.

I think there's a guy has a stall on Altrincham market who sells 'em. He's a mad Alty fan by all accounts.

 

[Stephen230]

And it's complete nonsense.

There are explanations in the existing laws that already cover the Rashford scenario. The following describe ways of interfering with an opponent:

1. Preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or

2. Challenging an opponent for the ball or

3. Clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent or

4. Making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

On point 1, Rashford prevents Akanji from being able to play the ball, and he is in Akanji's line of vision.

Point 2 Rashford challenges Akanji and Walker for the ball.

Point 3 is true if Rashford is deemed to be playing the ball for to his proximity to it.

Point 4. His obvious action of running with the ball alters Akanji's route to the ball. Ask if Rashford had stayed still, would Akanji have had a more direct path to the ball, and been favourite to get to it before Fernandes.

And if all this wasn't enough, there are 14 examples laid down in the laws to help referees in their judgement of offsides. The ninth pretty much covers the Rashford scenario.

This isn't subjective at all. Subjective is just the word they use to make it sound as though Attwell was justified. It's damage limitation.

And in my view, Cann and Oliver are equally to blame.

How’s the linesman to blame? He correctly calked it offside. He can’t stop the referee ignoring him and giving a goal.

 

[Norman kneejerk]

While the 'goal' was clearly offside. I also don't understand how the young left back was allowed to repeated foul Mahrez from behind without a card.

Tackling from behind has got very bad this year when it suits. Suspect its part of the disrupt city plan. The 70s was notorious for tackling from behind but watching the old games back they don't look as cynical as it is now.

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

How’s the linesman to blame? He correctly calked it offside. He can’t stop the referee ignoring him and giving a goal.

He backed down way too quickly, and seemingly before the referee even spoke to him.

Was the flag just for show?

Did someone whisper something in his ear?