Recent content by Peter Grove

I just spent a few days making a model of Mount Everest. A friend asked, "Is it to scale?" I said, "No, just to look at".

That's not the angle that shows why he was offside - which if you were watching the BBC coverage (as it seems you were) I suspect you know already. Immediately before showing that image, they showed this one, which clearly demonstrates the reason for the decision.

It did say 7 eventually but initially, just as the clock reached 90 minutes, it said 5. After the game restarted, it changed to 7, as you show above. However before the game ended, it switched back again to 5. So it looks like there was some kind of communications mix up over what the...

Oh, I don't know. The stamp by Matt Crooks onto the top of Alan Browne's foot was probably worth a caution and was (according to the commentators on the stream I watched) even being looked at for a potential red card offence, by VAR. (VAR thought it wasn't worth an on field review obviously...

This scenario is covered in the laws of the game. In the section entitled, "Guidelines for Match Officials," you will find the following illustration and explanatory text. I'm not sure what you mean by, "The law just says offside is then called." I don't see anything to that effect, either...

In this case, the referee was neither on the floor nor tangled up and unable to make a decision. There was no valid reason to stop play, as far as I can tell.

The referee just collided with a Southampton player and stopped play when the ball was running through for a promising Middlesbrough attack. Surely that's against the laws of the game. It's only a dropped ball if the referee makes contact with the ball - not a player?

Pretty sure that's referring to the time in the past when that was true. Up till 1979, any touch by a defender meant a player in an offside position was "played on" by that touch and not penalised for offside. The wording of the law in the years up to that point stated:

Quite. The following would seem applicable.

You're not going wrong, they are. The wording of Law 13 (which you have correctly quoted) is clear and unambiguous on this.

No, it's not. As the glossary entry posted by @one states, playing the ball means making contact with it. There's also this from the "Guidelines for Match Officials" section.

I don't think that meets the criteria for this law amendment. As I read it, a goal can only be scored at a penalty kick after a subsequent, accidental touch, if:

The more I hear about inverse proportion, the less I like it.

Based on what's on the IFAB website, it sounds like it's whenever the referee comes to the conclusion that the player is taking too long. Unlike with the goalkeeper 8 second count down, there is apparently no defined start point other than when the referee decides to initiate the count

Yes, as @Tealeaf also alludes to, it's the non-deliberate handling denial of a goal/goal scoring opportunity clause that was recently introduced.