CapnBloodbeard
RefChat Addict
There are many areas in the game where there can be a contrast between a 'common sense' approach and a 'by the book' approach (though I think many of the 'common sense' approaches advocated are actually anything but!). Any good referee knows how and where the laws can be bent - but of course, there's disagreement over that. In some instance Padfoot has seemed a little less willing to bend the laws than others, but I know plenty of very capable referees that are more of a stickler for the laws myself - and many that are less so. Padfoot is quite firm that his way is the right way, so there's been a bit of butting heads but outside of one thread, nothing too major.
Personally, while I wouldn't agree with some of Padfoot's approaches, I would much prefer his approach over some of the 'to hell with the laws, I'm going to do what I like' approaches a few others on here routinely advocate. And I've disagreed with others as well on how far to bend the laws.
This thread raises a problematic situation. If you're going to allow the goal, you're not bending the laws - you're breaking them.
Why are we allowing a match to begin with an obstruction over part of the goal? We all know something like this is possible - a soft ball with little forward momentum would make it into goal by its own but can be stopped by the net. What do we do? What can teams do with goals like this? Ropes can pull the top of the net back from the bar. Perhaps we shouldn't be starting the match in the first place if this obstruction is in place. We wouldn't allow a match with a tree branch in front of goal, would we?
The LOTG don't explicitly forbid this net problem, but common sense would dictate we address the problem before it's a problem. Any 'common sense' answer on here is actually just an 'easiest way out of the problem we've allowed to occur'.
And it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. But for those advocating a goal based on the 'you know it was going in the goal' argument (which I appreciate from a 'fairness' perspective), would you take the same approach if it struck the keeper's water bottle and stopped (in fact, one poster on here said that would be different - why??)? What about if a spectator came on and stopped the ball on the line? Or it burst as a striker kicked it into an open net (and you could hear it burst as he took the kick)? What's the difference? Why approach these differently?
Somebody usually comes back with 'but you can just say you thought it went in the goal and how would anybody know different?' - just because you can get away with a lie doesn't actually answer the question here, so please, don't bother.
Last edited:
Some clubs do allow you to erect poles up behind the posts... Our council says no, insurance purposes
