MOTD

SlowDownDerek said:
Who cares? Different game, different ref and didn't involve a team I support. There could have been a bad referee decision in the Dog and Duck vs the Kings Arms on Sunday but that doesn't mean that Smith pulling that guy's shirts wasn't a foul.
Click to expand...
If you think there was no other shirt pulling in our match then you have a point.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Who cares? Different game, different ref and didn't involve a team I support. There could have been a bad referee decision in the Dog and Duck vs the Kings Arms on Sunday but that doesn't mean that Smith pulling that guy's shirts wasn't a foul.
Click to expand...
You don't care about consistency by referees in the Premier League? Just checking because that seems a really weird thing to say and I'll be honest, I dont really believe you.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
You don't care about consistency by referees in the Premier League? Just checking because that seems a really weird thing to say and I'll be honest, I dont really believe you.
Click to expand...

Not particularly. I only care when it affects us. There will never be consistency in every decision. I would scrap VAR tomorrow and accept even more inconsistency too druss - I expect you'll find it hard to believe that too.
 
USCherry said:
Does it matter? Either shirt pulling is a foul or it is not.
Click to expand...

Well I think you are less likely to get away with a blatent one like Smith's one. You are right though, a shirt pull is a foul and Smithy is 100% bang to rights irrespective of a decision not being given in the Luton vs Man United game.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
Not particularly. I only care when it affects us. There will never be consistency in every decision. I would scrap VAR tomorrow and accept even more inconsistency too druss - I expect you'll find it hard to believe that too.
Click to expand...
"Not particularly, I only care when it affects us"

LOL read that back...slowly this time.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
"Not particularly, I only care when it affects us"

LOL read that back...slowly this time.
Click to expand...

Maybe you should read it slowly druss as you seem to be the one struggling with what I mean. I don't care about consistency in other games unless it affects AFCB somehow. I know you have a very scientific mind and struggle when things aren't in perfect order but there will never be consistency and I am ok with that.
 
Kudos said:
interfering with play by playing or touching a ball passed or touched by a team-mate or interfering with an opponent by:

Challenging an opponent for the ball or clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent
Click to expand...
As soon as Schär makes a move for the ball he is challenging for it, he is interfering with play. We can't leave him alone unchallenged, even if we think he's offside. He causes our defenders to challenge. Simple, even within the rule above - or should be.

This concept is new this year. There was an occurrence earlier in the season, though I can't remember who. Is it new international rule? Or an English (or Premier League) interpretation?
 
Kudos said:
Incorrect, the foul does not take place before the offside.
Click to expand...

It is not an offence to be offside. It only becomes an offence when the player becomes active, hence the ambiguity that I mention and the need for a clause clarifying what to do in the situation where a foul is commited on a player in an offside position. They have clarified in the law and therefore the foul takes precedence over the offside - it is all there in black and white no matter how much you pretend it isn't.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
It is not an offence to be offside. It only becomes an offence when the player becomes active, hence the ambiguity that I mention and the need for a clause clarifying what to do in the situation where a foul is commited on a player in an offside position. They have clarified in the law and therefore the foul takes precedence over the offside - it is all there in black and white no matter how much you pretend it isn't.
Click to expand...
and he's active as soon as he's interfering with an opponent which he does the instant the ball is live.

You seem to be willfully misinterpreting the clarification to mean that no player is penalised until they try to play the ball, which is blatantly incorrect.
 
Kudos said:
and he's active as soon as he's interfering with an opponent which he does the instant the ball is live.

You seem to be willfully misinterpreting the clarification to mean that no player is penalised until they try to play the ball, which is blatantly incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, to be guilty of an offside offence he needs to either play the ball or impact his opponents ability to play the ball. This can only be judged when the ball gets there. This creates a conflict between whether the offside offence or the foul occurs first and this conflict is clarified by the added clause. There is no ambiguity - the law requires the ref to prioritise the foul over the offside in this exact scenario. No two ways about it.
 
corfe_red said:
www.skysports.com

Ref Watch: Why was a Newcastle penalty given if Fabian Schar was offside?

Former Premier League referee Dermot Gallagher explains why a penalty was given to Newcastle after Bournemouths Adam Smith pulled Fabian Schars shirt despite the Swiss defender starting in an offside position.
www.skysports.com www.skysports.com
Click to expand...

Another case of "the laws were applied" despite the laws making absolutely no fcuking sense.

An offside offence is only committed when the player receives the ball, despite the fact that in the build up to receiving the ball they can be interfering with play in an offside position that affects the outcome of the entire passage of play.

Whereas a goal can be ruled out if an offside player interferes with play regardless of whether they receive the ball or not...
 
Last edited:
I'd be looking to have a player clearly offside when we attack with no intention to play the ball. This allowing other players to come in behind and once they play the ball it's a different passage of play (tm) so the initial forward player would no longer be offside.

I think I saw this explained in a Marx Bros film once.
 
SlowDownDerek said:
No, to be guilty of an offside offence he needs to either play the ball or impact his opponents ability to play the ball. This can only be judged when the ball gets there. This creates a conflict between whether the offside offence or the foul occurs first and this conflict is clarified by the added clause. There is no ambiguity - the law requires the ref to prioritise the foul over the offside in this exact scenario. No two ways about it.
Click to expand...
You've left out "challenging for the ball" for some reason - that is the closest bit of the rule. Clearly he is challenging for the ball as soon as he makes a run for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;