Ref Watch

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

yes, if that is Rashford there at the pen, it stays as a pen and they say Rashford could not have been offside due to the fact he did not touch the ball. he can run after the ball as we saw 3 weeks ago.
it doesnt mean defender can fault him.

By the law, that is exactly what should have happened. Haaland is never offside as he never touches the ball and isn’t interfering with an opponent. The first offence is the foul, not the offside. Similarly, had Akanji fouled Rashford and a free kick been given, it wouldn’t have been offside either.
What VAR has done and why it should be binned, is that it’s making the law makers rewrite laws from game to game to fit in with some mythical attempt at ‘purity’, so it’s hardly surprising that the officials are getting more things wrong than ever.…..

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Has he been in rehab?

No, no, no.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Good point, but the scenario last night is slightly different. Haaland DID challenge the Arsenal player for the ball, so this doesn't apply.

No he didn’t.

 

[Blue Mist]

Sergio v West Ham - It was a City employee / contractor calling for him to be banned in City Square after, the first I heard of this. If city want to publicise the incident 5 mins after the match we can't blame the press.

Adebayor was booked for the celebration and later fined for the incident, he was banned for the stamp which was unnoticed.

@Prestwich_Blue sorry to tag you in but please correct @Corky. My memory is shit but I know you posted about the club telling you about Adebayor.
As for the Aguero one, we all saw the newspaper photos of the ref clearly looking at the incident only to deny seeing it 3 days later.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

@Prestwich_Blue sorry to tag you in but please correct @Corky. My memory is shit but I know you posted about the club telling you about Adebayor.
As for the Aguero one, we all saw the newspaper photos of the ref clearly looking at the incident only to deny seeing it 3 days later.

I've no knowledge of the incident in City Square that Corky is referring to but there was a media witch-hunt on both counts.

The then FA Chief Exec, Ian Watmore (Arsenal fan) came out on Gary Richardson's programme on Radio 5 Live on the Sunday morning, the day after the game, to state that Adebayor would be punished. He was banned for the van Persie incident and given a suspended ban for the goal celebration, which the club were originally told he'd been booked for.

 

[Corky]

I've no knowledge of the incident in City Square that Corky is referring to but there was a media witch-hunt on both counts.

The then FA Chief Exec, Ian Watmore (Arsenal fan) came out on Gary Richardson's programme on Radio 5 Live on the Sunday morning, the day after the game, to state that Adebayor would be punished. He was banned for the van Persie incident and given a suspended ban for the goal celebration, which the club were originally told he'd been booked for.

It was Hugh Ferris smugly suggesting he should be banned in City square just after the game.

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

It was Hugh Ferris smugly suggesting he should be banned in City square just after the game.

None of the journalists would have heard that though. They'd have been stuffing their fat faces.

 

[Cassandra]

Problem with that is, IFAB has said the rules are fine. So it's PGMOL's interpretation of the rules which is wrong. Which means it was a mistake. Just say it FFS.

By the law, that is exactly what should have happened. Haaland is never offside as he never touches the ball and isn’t interfering with an opponent. The first offence is the foul, not the offside. Similarly, had Akanji fouled Rashford and a free kick been given, it wouldn’t have been offside either.
What VAR has done and why it should be binned, is that it’s making the law makers rewrite laws from game to game to fit in with some mythical attempt at ‘purity’, so it’s hardly surprising that the officials are getting more things wrong than ever.…..

It is a subjective judgement as to whether Haaland challenged Gabriel or whether it was entirely Gabriel challenging Haaland. I favour the latter but others will differ. If I remember correctly a few years ago Kane was awarded a penalty in not entirely different circumstances and around the same time City were penalised similarly in a European game.

However the real problem is how the offside law (& there is a similar problem with the handball law) is that it concentrates On the minutiae and has lost the sense of the purpose of the law. When IFAB met shortly after the Derby and decided that they didn’t need to relook at the law, to me they simply indicated that they are not fit for purpose.

The law should start with a clear statement of what the purpose of the law is. My view would be that it should state. The purpose of this law should be to prevent a team gaining an advantage by one or more players are in an offside position when the ball is played forward to to them.

Then it could go on to state that the factors to be considered by the referee in considering whether players are in an offside position and if they are gaining an advantage.

With some rephrasing the present law could then be listed. I would add a condition that if a player came back from an offside before receiving the ball they would normally no longer be considered to have gained an advantage by being in an offside position and add that to be considered to be offside there should be a clear gap between the player and the last defender.

In my view there was no advantage to Harland as he was moving in the wrong direction in coming back from an offside position and came back onside before turning a setting off to follow the ball. There is a sense in which Haaland was disadvantaged compared with Rashford simply because he was only just offside so contact with the defender came early on whereas Rashford gained such an advantage over Akanji that any contact by Akanji would would almost certainly be given as a foul.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

By the law, that is exactly what should have happened. Haaland is never offside as he never touches the ball and isn’t interfering with an opponent. The first offence is the foul, not the offside. Similarly, had Akanji fouled Rashford and a free kick been given, it wouldn’t have been offside either.
What VAR has done and why it should be binned, is that it’s making the law makers rewrite laws from game to game to fit in with some mythical attempt at ‘purity’, so it’s hardly surprising that the officials are getting more things wrong than ever.…..

This has been going on ever since VAR reared its ugly head. Offside one week, but miraculously onside the week after; handball one week, not handball the next.

 

[halfcenturyup]

It is a subjective judgement as to whether Haaland challenged Gabriel or whether it was entirely Gabriel challenging Haaland. I favour the latter but others will differ. If I remember correctly a few years ago Kane was awarded a penalty in not entirely different circumstances and around the same time City were penalised similarly in a European game.

However the real problem is how the offside law (& there is a similar problem with the handball law) is that it concentrates On the minutiae and has lost the sense of the purpose of the law. When IFAB met shortly after the Derby and decided that they didn’t need to relook at the law, to me they simply indicated that they are not fit for purpose.

The law should start with a clear statement of what the purpose of the law is. My view would be that it should state. The purpose of this law should be to prevent a team gaining an advantage by one or more players are in an offside position when the ball is played forward to to them.

Then it could go on to state that the factors to be considered by the referee in considering whether players are in an offside position and if they are gaining an advantage.

With some rephrasing the present law could then be listed. I would add a condition that if a player came back from an offside before receiving the ball they would normally no longer be considered to have gained an advantage by being in an offside position and add that to be considered to be offside there should be a clear gap between the player and the last defender.

In my view there was no advantage to Harland as he was moving in the wrong direction in coming back from an offside position and came back onside before turning a setting off to follow the ball. There is a sense in which Haaland was disadvantaged compared with Rashford simply because he was only just offside so contact with the defender came early on whereas Rashford gained such an advantage over Akanji that any contact by Akanji would would almost certainly be given as a foul.

Agree with most of that, and in the same vein, the handball rule should start off by saying the over-riding principle is that a player commits an offence by deliberately handling the ball, then going to list the elements that should be taken into account to determine a deliberate action, if they want that much detail.