Recent content by JamesL

The GK was impacted, you see him make an instinctive reactionary movement as the ball goes past Fernandez. The fact he probably couldn't get to it anyway is neither here nor there, it's not the standard, the standard is impact and opponent and that I think that is pretty undeniable. Offside is...

Minor language point here. He cannot be guilty of interfering with play as he did not play the ball.

Camera angle changes perception. That's why as an AR it is imperative to be in line and not have angles distortion your perception. To be honest I was pretty certain he was onside from the broadcast view, adding a mental allowance for the angle.

He is not..the semi automated visual proves he was in an onside position. Which is why the goal has been awarded. To understand what's happend. 1 AR has indicated that Haaland is offside. 2 This is disproved by the SAOT. 3 They then make a judgment that Fernandez has not played the ball or...

It is absolutely not a deliberate play.

Ah you are misreading the visual. They draw the line at the defenders foot as that is the "onside line" at the point the ball is played. Haaland is onside due to Dorgu's outstretched leg. Only Fernandez is in an offside position.

Why would they draw the line at a play by a defender? They drew the line as the man city player crossed the ball as that is the point offside position is judged. They need this point to determine Haaland position and then when Haaland was offside they moved to the potential play. If was a...

They've deemed that as a deliberate play? Where has that been mentioned. I can't see how that's a deliberate play myself.

I don't think this matters. It only has to impact an opponent, not their ability to play the ball (that's the next bullet). Both remake an instinctive reaction to the action which to me gives rise to an offence under the playing a ball that is close clause.

I'm not sure. They haven't deemed it a possible offence so I don't think it needs OFR.

I think this is a mistake too. Fernandez attempts to play a ball that's close which impacts an opponent (2 in fact both Martinez and the GK.)

C1 BE but the OP already knows that 😝 Edit: Also on reflection potential/probable dogso red card instead.

If you are going to penalise the offence it would be an indirect free kick.

I don't think there's any scenario where the minute transfers to another player. They are independent issues. I've found that the 1 minute is working and the injuries and physio coming on is much less. But then the players who are genuinely injured are almost paying the price for the sins of...

There is an exemption if it's an injured player that's being subbed off. "The referee may decide not to apply the ten-second time limit, including when: a player’s injury clearly prevents them from leaving the field within that time"