Search results

Even if that should have been a red that was dead set great. That bloke will be a laughing stock for years. Great hit.

Well of course but it's a bad look that encourages dissent at the lower levels. The top level should be the standard that's expected. Why am I enforcing rules that aren't complied with at the highest levels? You never see this sort of thing in Union for example. They've got that sorted.

Can you blokes see this video or is it geoblocked. If it is it's after the ref allows the goal when De Gea went down and is swamped by half a dozen Manu U players. Why can they not bring out a directive that that will be an automatic yellow card going forward. Needs to be stamped out a the...

Thanks mate. So IF the GK did get a red then it would still be an IDK against green for the restart?

Lol. Obstruction by #7 green. IDK to blue team. In all seriousness though hasn't green backed into the keeper and blocked him from gaining possession. IE Obstruction. What was actually given? (Ref seems to indicate foul against green.)

Understood. It's the 'deliberately playing at' which is difficult to adjudge.

But you understand how at pleb level this causes all sorts of grief. Sometimes they need to think about the grassroots before lumping us poor schlubs in it. Gotta run. Off to indoor football to kick some other blokes. No offsides to worry about. Cheers

Can you please have a crack at a defender who jumps up to head the ball that an attacker(#1) has played through and it just grazes the top of his head and goes through the 'offside' attacker (#2). I'm not trying to box you in. I'm genuinely interested.

I understand the grey area. Difficult for sure. The intent was to allow the attacker to be played on when they made these new rules. I get it. I'm still not totally comfortable with attackers hanging around behind defenders because if the defender is keeping an eye on him and watching his runs...

From IFAB. 'A player in an offside position receiving the ball from an opponent who deliberately plays the ball, including by deliberate handball, is not considered to have gained an advantage, unless it was a deliberate save by any opponent.' What is 'deliberately plays'? To be a pedant...

I don't understand this at all. For the past few years the rules have been fine until now we have this ridiculous situation where a tiny touch plays players in 'offside' positions on. For a thousand years the determining factor has been when the ball is played is (firstly) the player...

Yes but if it touches his shoelaces it does?

Could you explain why that's not an IDK for a high foot though? I see no intent. Is it because he could see the player coming? If he couldn't see the player coming would that have had a bearing on the decision? (Or it doesn't matter about intent because it's dangerous anyway?) I'm not having a...

100%. Bang on. Because what is a 'deflection' and what is 'played at'? Is an air swing that clips the shoe laces 'played at'? What if he makes no contact but 'played at' it? Does that count?

The whole thing is garbage. You judge offside from when the ball leaves the foot/head/chest of the attacking team. Where was he standing when the ball was played to him? That's right in an offside position. Therefore offside. Just ridiculous to make amateur refs try and interpret this sort of...

Stupid, stupid rule. All fine and dandy for games where there's the benefit of hardened match officials and VAR replays. Bad luck for poor old me and other blokes like me getting screamed at by players and coaches yelling 'HE'S PLAYED AT IT' in the lower leagues. Now we're meant to determine...

Yeah cool. Just thought that maybe because he played the ball so far forward and no way was going to get to it there may have been some extenuating circumstances. Thanks

Help me out here. The first pen that was given was presumably for the trip upending the Mexican who tapped the ball to far forward to get it? Why or why not is that a penalty? Thanks

On paper sounds sensible.

LoL. Backpass all day long. Whoops.