Ref Watch

domalino said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hypocritical if they don't charge Arteta, given that they recently charged Billy Sharp for suggesting the referee helped their opposition in a recent game.

Billy Sharp: Sheffield United striker charged for referee comments after Wrexham win - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/64681921
 
Paladin said:
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.
51410a86cc75349e3e4f48e5aced2c5c.jpg
Click to expand...
I wholly take the point that it is difficult to say that any contact isn’t a challenge but you can‘t easily have a foul without contact, so it becomes debatable. As I recall the penalty in the City European game was where the attacker was behind the City line at a free kick and in the rush to get back as the kick came in there was a tangle of legs and the attacker went down. In principle that does’t seem any more clear cut than with Haaland. I remember it because it was the first time I realised that that clause existed. It was an away game but I can’t remember any more details. Then the Kane penalty followed a similar pattern.
 
Paladin said:
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.

9d4d76667a52b35514372e6d4d827732.jpg
Click to expand...
Its not a point. Its the official IFAB directive. They were to far from it to touch it so cant possibly be considered as competing/contesting the ball. It was an off the ball incident
 
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