The Ref Stop

Chelsea V United

Santa's literal interpretation of law is correct imo. However, we all know the that it is not applied literally and IFAB are fumbling with single words to clarify the intent. Hence, it sounds like IFAB have replied to Santa and hidden behind the 'football expects' garbage, to which Santa has protested.
I don't think this is a question of who is right or wrong, because the debate wouldn't exist if IFAB were competent
 
Last edited:
The Ref Stop
Big Cat said:
Santa's literal interpretation of law is correct imo. However, we all know the how that it is not applied literally and IFAB are fumbling with single words to clarify the intent. Hence, it sounds like IFAB have replied to Santsa and hidden behind the 'football expects' garbage, to which Santa has protested.
I don't think this is a question of who is right or wrong, because the debate wouldn't exist if IFAB were competent
Click to expand...
Spot on... what worries me is after next years edition we'll lose the explanation for the change, which gives greater competency to the intent of the law and referees will apply the law incorrectly, or will just ignore it as has previously been the case and cited within the explanation for change.
 
JamesL said:
Spot on... what worries me is after next years edition we'll lose the explanation for the change, which gives greater competency to the intent of the law and referees will apply the law incorrectly, or will just ignore it as has previously been the case and cited within the explanation for change.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly what is happening now with the "clearly moves" change which happened two years ago.

Over to you @Sheffields Finest
 
Couldn't they just say knocking the ball down when the GK could have held on to it didn't count as a save or rebound? Mind you, that's probably what Karius meant to do with the third goal last night.

And can we penalise a GK who catches the ball then dives on the ground for no reason?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top