RateTheRef

Quote from: Readingfan on Sun 03 Mar 2019 19:11

Quote from: TheThingFromLewes on Sun 03 Mar 2019 19:00

Quote from: Boz on Sun 03 Mar 2019 17:14

Quote from: Microscopist on Sun 03 Mar 2019 12:49

Quote from: TheThingFromLewes on Sat 02 Mar 2019 23:12

Seems to have been some real rubbish today in the PL according to our learn’d posters.

Attwell, Taylor and Friend seem to have drawn some criticism today.

What did Friend do wrong?

I wasn’t aware of any issue with Mr Friend’s performance either.

Bmb mentioned the crowd shouting 1-0 to Kevin Friend in the appointments thread....

Not sure that is sufficient evidence to warrant the phrase 'real rubbish'.

I was happily watching the lovely Mr Solymosi referee Újpest very competently. 

I suspect it is more just down to how much he is hated locally, the singing of 1-0 to Kevin Friend was loud & clear on the radio & the commentators weren't very nice about him, quite unusual for Radio Solent, the afcb twitter feed was full of comments about "usual dross from Friend", "as poor as usual", "dreadful referee" etc including from 2 local press sources who rarely comment on the ref.   Not seen any suggestions he got anything specifically wrong or made any game changing errors, just that he was "his usual dreadful self".  In terms of the result as everyone was expecting at least 5 knocked passed us, in the first place, there has been no suggestion that was down to him! It is fully accepted that 82% possession and a team in a league above us (in terms of skill and capability) completely dominating the match was the only reason for the defeat and a general amazement that it was only by 1 goal.  I gather though we parked the bus so I am glad I was not there to see that, I would not have enjoyed it!

Offside simply cannot be given against Kane in this situation, this is covered by Law 11 which states …

In situations where: a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

He hasn't played or attempted to play the ball, or challenged an opponent for the ball, as he was fouled before the ball got there.  Had the foul not happened then he would undoubtedly have been given offside, but the defender's actions determined the outcome

Offside simply cannot be given against Kane in this situation, this is covered by Law 11 which states …

In situations where: a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

He hasn't played or attempted to play the ball, or challenged an opponent for the ball, as he was fouled before the ball got there.  Had the foul not happened then he would undoubtedly have been given offside, but the defender's actions determined the outcome

Quote from: rustyref on Sun 03 Mar 2019 20:37

Offside simply cannot be given against Kane in this situation, this is covered by Law 11 which states …

In situations where: a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence

He hasn't played or attempted to play the ball, or challenged an opponent for the ball, as he was fouled before the ball got there.  Had the foul not happened then he would undoubtedly have been given offside, but the defender's actions determined the outcome

Grandad Walton says no penalty.... I'm confused!!!!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/no-spurs-penalty-under-var-6wg7l5nnl
[/quote


I think Walton’s column is beginning to make Keith Hackett’s look much better than I first thought! Following on from his justification of the appalling dissent against Adam Nunn a few weeks ago as being part of the emotion of the game, his analysis in this morning’s column seems to me to completely ignore the current law as quoted by rustyref. The photograph he shows (number 2) at the moment the foul is committed seems totally at odds with his narrative. This picture shows Kane has his feet on the ground when he is fouled but according to Walton he is already attempting to play the ball despite the laws explicitly allowing a player to move towards the ball without making them actively offside. Kane appparently is also challenging an opponent making him active before the foul. Kane may be a talented player but not sure even he can offer a challenge to the defender to his right who is a couple of feet away whilst incidentally he is staring skyward. Or perhaps it is the defender who commits the foul whoWalton thinks Kane is challenging, introducing the novel (well it is for me) talent of being able to legally challenge an opponent who is behind you.
 

On Sky earlier, Dermot Gallagher said that Kane should have been given offside because he had challenged for the ball - one assumes (or at least hopes) this is the official PGMO position considering Gallagher's role. He also stated assistant referee was poorly positioned.

Gallagher thought second penalty award was wrong but it should have been retaken due to encroachment.

Well this thread, together with the comments from Messrs Gallagher and Walton proves that Football (and Refereeing) can be remarkably subjective.

As it says in the Laws "In the Opinion of the Referee" and really that is all we can go on.

That an official operating at the highest level is of an opinion which may be at odds with how some of us see it and may ultimately be proved incorrect. This opinion being formed on the basis of one viewing at full speed with all the associated noise and other potential distractions. Not forgetting the inconvenience that human beings have to blink during which any sort of eventuality is possible