Ref Watch

[Colin Bells Boots]

Totally agree with your point about stating the purpose of the law at the outset. This is what Webb tries to do before he goes on to make up some excuse for a mistake. (See his explanation about the Rashford decision). He's admitted that it should have been offside, and will be penalised as such in future.

Regarding your interpretation of 'challenge', this is already prescribed in the LOTG.

It's pretty clear that Haaland and Gabriel were challenging each other, and it's therefore hard to argue that the offside decision wasn't correct - under the current interpretation of the law. However, it is also pertinent that Haaland achieved an onside position before challenging for the ball, so he didn't gain any advantage by being in the offside position. Your suggested statement to summarise the purpose of the law should resolve this kind of dilemma.

IFAB determined that the law was already sufficient after the Rashford incident, and this is absolutely correct. It was the refereeing team that got this totally wrong. Oliver on VAR and Cann on the line are as much to blame as Attwell for letting that goal stand. Webb's weasel words about subjectivity are merely obfuscation.

And the rags get to keep the points they shouldn't have had .


like night following day for the cunts

 

[fuskarn]

 

[Paladin]

I’d be waiting to know the difference between Rashford’s offside goal not called and Haaland’s own which was called. Rashford didn’t touch anybody but Haaland was in a physical tussle with Gabriel. Right?

Question is do players have to be in physical contact with opposing players before they can affect play? Stop blaming the rules. As imperfect as it might seem, it has served us for decades with efficiency to a reasonable extent. BLAME THE REF who allowed Rashford to run with the ball for 10 seconds, shielding it in the process, and allowing his teammate play a shot.

Tell me that Ederson wasn’t impacted by the active presence of Rashers and Akanji and Walker?

Oh give me a break!

The Rashford incident is not one that should be used as a comparator. Howard Webb has admitted that that was a mistake, and if it happens again, it will be penalised as offside.

It would have been interesting if City players had pointed out to Taylor that Haaland didn't touch the ball, and report back his response in the post match interviews.

 

[BringBackSwales]

16 or 17 years too late. ****

 

[domalino]

I'm going to guess that this is because PGMOL and/or the PL won't go after Arteta's comments where he said it wasn't a mistake or human error - very clearly implying Mason was corrupt or made the decision on purpose.

 

[FantasyIreland]

Hmmmmm......does this add weight to recent 'revelations'?

 

[blueparsman]

conspiracy theories will fly now

 

[Paladin]

They were quite some way from the ball when Haaland was fouled. Certainly not close enough to touch it. According to the Rashford incident he cant possibly be called offside/challenging for the ball. It was an off the ball incident. As the foul came first (according to the current law). A player stood in an offside position isnt an offence in itself.

Here’s the IFAB Official line on it. Clear Pen…. Plus a pic of them clearly not close enough to be considered as playing the ball

I understand your point, but my response is explained in recent replies.

The Rashford incident can't be used as an example of an offside decision because PGMOL has subsequently said it was an incorrect decision.

The Laws of the Game give a definition of challenging for the ball. I think Haaland and Gabriel both fit the definition.

 

[skillman]

Some accountability?

 

[Colin Bells Boots]

So fired then for being corrupt and fucking useless to boot.