[Football] are we ever going to get a ref that can see better than me ...

[Official Old Man]

I thought the ref was one of the best we've had this season.
But during the Murray non goal two players 'touched' the ref and so should have been booked. I thought there was a rule about players surrounding the ref and yet most of the Arsenal team were around him, one clearly pulling his arm and one clearly with his arms all over his shoulders.

 

[Pondicherry]

Hope this clears it up for those who think it was not offside.

Interfering with an opponent If an attacker interferes with an opponent by either preventing them from playing or being able to play the ball by clearly obstructing the opponent's line of vision or movements or making a gesture or movement which deceives or distracts an opponent, then they are offside.

 

[Frankie]

Best ref iv'e seen all season on TV and live , pity they're all not as good imo .

 

[BensGrandad]

Yet another poor referee who will be exposed as inefficient when VAR comes in next season. To his credit he did try to play the advantage and wasn't conned by Arsenal players falling over and screaming.

 

[BensGrandad]

Best ref iv'e seen all season on TV and live , pity they're all not as good imo .

You obviously do not watch much football either live or on TV, He is not fit to wipe Michael Olivers boots.

 

[The Wizard]

Quite amusing people who don’t know the rules saying that it’s not offside, would he have been in that position to block it had he not been 5 yards offside just seconds before? The answer is no, and therefore he’s interfering with play and should be called offside, it was a rubbish clearance from Bernardo though. Almost as bad as that complete donut of a ref in the Chelsea game who allowed a free kick for Murray being offside to be taken in OUR OWN HALF.

Saying that, we also profited from 2 bad decisions in the palace game... swings and roundabouts.

 

[Everest]

Quite amusing people who don’t know the rules saying that it’s not offside, would he have been in that position to block it had he not been 5 yards offside just seconds before? The answer is no, and therefore he’s interfering with play and should be called offside, it was a rubbish clearance from Bernardo though. Almost as bad as that complete donut of a ref in the Chelsea game who allowed a free kick for Murray being offside to be taken in OUR OWN HALF.

It's almost quite amusing that people don't know they're laws, not rules.

Lacazette was only one yard offside, not five.

The taking of the free kick in our half in the Chelsea match was the correct decision.
"If an offside offence occurs, the referee awards an indirect free kick where the offence occurred, including if it is in the player’s own half of the field of play."

The Law now says that the IDFK for offside can be taken in the player’s own half but how can this be correct?
It is correct because:
a player CAN NOT be in an offside POSITION in their own half
a player CAN commit an offside OFFENCE in their own half if they go back into their own half from an offside position
With the exception of offences in the goal area, throughout the Laws every free kick is awarded from the place where the offence occurs so it is logical that this should also apply to offside.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Quite amusing people who don’t know the rules saying that it’s not offside, would he have been in that position to block it had he not been 5 yards offside just seconds before? The answer is no, and therefore he’s interfering with play and should be called offside, it was a rubbish clearance from Bernardo though. Almost as bad as that complete donut of a ref in the Chelsea game who allowed a free kick for Murray being offside to be taken in OUR OWN HALF.

Saying that, we also profited from 2 bad decisions in the palace game... swings and roundabouts.

You will get me despairing again with that comment, know the laws!!!

 

[BensGrandad]

Quite amusing people who don’t know the rules saying that it’s not offside, would he have been in that position to block it had he not been 5 yards offside just seconds before? The answer is no, and therefore he’s interfering with play and should be called offside, it was a rubbish clearance from Bernardo though. Almost as bad as that complete donut of a ref in the Chelsea game who allowed a free kick for Murray being offside to be taken in OUR OWN HALF.

100% correct decision in accordance with the latest rules.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

100% correct decision in accordance with the latest rules.

****ing LAWS BG not RULES

 

[BensGrandad]

****ing LAWS BG not RULES

Sorry got confused and mixed it up not thinking that it was 1 of the 9 laws of Football.

 

[SussexSeahawk]

Even though it was offside, it's not like that 'caused' the goal. It obviously increased the chance of use conceding, but we had several chances to clear it after that before the ball was in the back of the net. The chance of them scoring from playing on vs if the offside had been giving was probably less than 2-3%. Is stupid therefore imo to say that we conceded BECAUSE the linesman didn't flag for offside. The linesman caused us to have a slightly greater chance of conceding and then we ultimately did.

 

[Juan Albion]

Time to scrap offside when serious football fans can't work it out.

 

[BensGrandad]

Having watched the play backs I am not convinced that the keeper had TWO hands on the ball and would suggest that we were unlucky as to me he appeared to have 1 hand on it and dropped it to roll away from him under pressure.

 

[SAC]

I think most fans in modern stadiums do actually have a better view of the game than the ref. TV obviously has numerous views that the ref isn't able to see, all of which makes us assume that a ref is useless rather than doing the best that he can.

I realise that this isn't a popular view! VAR should help, although I'm certain that people on football messageboards will still know better than a qualified referee.

 

[Husty]

i presume they are on 4 or 5 k a week

Have you tried looking that up, you ignorant tosser?

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

Having watched the play backs I am not convinced that the keeper had TWO hands on the ball and would suggest that we were unlucky as to me he appeared to have 1 hand on it and dropped it to roll away from him under pressure.

He doesn't need to have two hands on it but be considered to "have control of the ball".


A goalkeeper is considered to be in control of the ball when:

the ball is between the hands or between the hand and any surface (e.g. ground, own body) or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms except if the ball rebounds accidentally from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save
holding the ball in the outstretched open hand
bouncing it on the ground or throwing it in the air
A goalkeeper cannot be challenged by an opponent when in control of the ball with the hands.

 

[Frankie]

You obviously do not watch much football either live or on TV, He is not fit to wipe Michael Olivers boots.

I sincerely apologise for voicing my ridiculous opinion and will endeavour to curtail any such nonsensical self opinionated drivel in the future , and furthermore would like to thank you for bringing my shortcomings to my attention, happy new year .

 

[Taybha]

I sincerely apologise for voicing my ridiculous opinion and will endeavour to curtail any such nonsensical self opinionated drivel in the future , and furthermore would like to thank you for bringing my shortcomings to my attention, happy new year .

I’ve got some ironing needs doing

 

[sydney]

Have you tried looking that up, you ignorant tosser?

no i don't bother looking shit up ...it makes for a boring , sterile discourse devoid of personal input and debate , you boring flange.....!!