Ref Watch

simon23 said:
Absolutely agree that they are vague...they need to be changed and simplified......If you are in the attacking half you are interfeering with play....real easy..all players have to be onside in the attacking half at al times....

As Ivesaid they imply physicality with words such as
Moves into the way of an opponent...Now does that mean deliberate obstuction or what rashford does as he wasnt holding the player off player
Impedes progress - does he physically stop anyone from playing (or attempting to play) the ball.....no...
interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
Rashford does none of these. he is not obstructing anyones view, he hasnt challenged anyone and he makes no attempt to play the ball

Most decisions (besides whether the ball crosses the goal line or not) are subjective.
Click to expand...
Should the goal have stood?
 
waspish said:
Referee should be told to book players when they surround them! This Attwell shit his pants at the rags surrounding him and right in his face that what changed that decision because if they excepted it it wouldn’t been changed! What’s Oliver doing on var? He can see it he knows the rules he has to tell him it’s not allowed
Click to expand...
Oliver is a fucking cheat, remember Anfield when TAA handball, they break upfield and score. We haven’t had a pen at Old Toilet in the Premier League era, 31 fucking years. We have had one at home in the same time. Ref’s are bent, they play for their own self interest.
we got stiffed, we have to move on.
 
Hart of the Matter said:
I have an FA coaching qualification... You stink this place out... Sniff and fkn sniff... You spout bollocks but somehow stay on this board. Don't care if you are a City fan or not. Strange how this is the thread that has attracted you rather than the post match or player thread.
Click to expand...
Do you have a refeering qualification as coaching quals mean little here

The board is for opinions...you think mine are bollocks...thats ok...

Go check out the KDB thread for my other posts since the derby since you were asking.
 
simon23 said:
Absolutely agree that they are vague...they need to be changed and simplified......If you are in the attacking half you are interfeering with play....real easy..all players have to be onside in the attacking half at al times....

As Ivesaid they imply physicality with words such as
Moves into the way of an opponent...Now does that mean deliberate obstuction or what rashford does as he wasnt holding the player off player
Impedes progress - does he physically stop anyone from playing (or attempting to play) the ball.....no...
interfering with an opponent by:
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision or
  • challenging an opponent for the ball or
  • clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
Rashford does none of these. he is not obstructing anyones view, he hasnt challenged anyone and he makes no attempt to play the ball

Most decisions (besides whether the ball crosses the goal line or not) are subjective.
Click to expand...
Given you acknowledge that the LoTG, are sufficiently vague to allow interpretation, can you not accept that you are very much in the minority, who think him not interfering, and therefore onside (referee, rags & YOU), probably akin to less than 1%.
Irrespective of the laws you seem to delight in quoting, the general opinion of most is that he WAS interfering with play, WAS offside, and the "goal" should have been disallowed, even within your quoted laws!
 
bluesince76 said:
I think he goes to shoot, Fernandes shouts to leave it and then shoots himself. The slight movement from Rashford's left leg is the one bit that probably makes him offside (according to the current law, not what's sensible). I don't think the assistant or referee could have spotted it, which is where VAR comes in. What I don't get, is why they didn't review it.
If the assistant hadn't flagged, they'd have definitely reviewed it. He does, the ref talks to him and they decide it's onside and therefore VAR does nothing. I'd like to see the rule for that bit.
Click to expand...

once the linesman but his flag up and the referee blows his whistle, then VAR should be called for ?
but I am putting my defending hat on here ? clearly, defenders train for holding the line to catch players offside with the ball being played, so you are interfering with play if you're in an offside place,
 
simon23 said:
Do you have a refeering qualification as coaching quals mean little here

The board is for opinions...you think mine are bollocks...thats ok...

Go check out the KDB thread for my other posts since the derby since you were asking.
Click to expand...
Ban this fucker... Obviously enjoys winding up City supporters on a City forum after an on obvious abuse of City... The poster is just being a ****.
 
There’s obviously a measure of room for interpretation, but looking at the wording of the rules, it seems pretty plain that it should have been ruled offside.
And leaving aside the current wording, it couldn’t be any more blatant that that type of situation should be recognised as offside. Utter fucking nonsense.
And as ever, no transparency on how the officials arrived at the decision. But we’ll sure as shit get some bollocks justification in the next few days.
 
simon23 said:
Akanji isnt stoped by anyone from trying to tackle Rashford....Rashford doesnt touch Akanji, put him off balance or anything.
As Rashford never touches the ball he never changes the direction or speed of the ball
Click to expand...
Of course he is. Rashford body blocks him from the ball. Akanji not knowing 100% if Rashford is offside, he knows if he goes near him he risks bringing him down. Ederson has not come out of the box because of rashford running with the ball. If you seriously think rashford doesn’t interfere then you are beyond parody

It clearly states in the laws the player doesn’t have to touch the ball to be interfering. I suggest you read the law

www.thefa.com

Law 11 - Offside

IFAB Laws of the Game
www.thefa.com www.thefa.com

I’ve highlighted the 2 infringements for you
  • preventing an opponent from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent’s line of vision
  • making an obvious action which clearly impacts on the ability of an opponent to play the ball

You sound like Peter Walton, not a good look!!
 

Attachments

  • DF4FBB47-4A8B-4078-95F1-6B2FE0A8AC6E.jpeg
    DF4FBB47-4A8B-4078-95F1-6B2FE0A8AC6E.jpeg
    646.5 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
Another fucking thing! VAR intervened on zero occasions today, we had two good penalty appeals, and then that “goal” again nada.
so here’s a thing, last week a bit spotlight was shone on Anfield, what not all cameras, what no big screen? So imagine, dishonest Oliver tells Twatwell he needs to look at something, what happens? A big spotlight is shone on Old Toilet, the natives are restless, what going on? Er no big screens here mate, hmmmmm another stadium not up to scratch. Imagine a prematch conversation, “we want nothing going to VAR unless it favours our buddies” hmmmmmm kind of explains things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top