This Wenger charge for calling into question the integrity of the referees

[Pokster]

Not how it works - either the onfield ref accepts a recommendation from the VAR or, as in most instances, reviews the incident on a screen at the side of the pitch. Ultimately, onfield ref has final decision no matter what

Sounds better... how does it work on offside? Do they just play on and try to score or if it only when the ball goes straight in the net and nobody can say the offside flag changed the way they played?

[redgunamo]

Sounds better... how does it work on offside? Do they just play on and try to score or if it only when the ball goes straight in the net and nobody can say the offside flag changed the way they played?

Irrelevant. We will have video officiating because some football bigwig's nephew owns a playback-video equipment firm, not because it will solve anything.

[Ash]

Irrelevant. We will have video officiating because some football bigwig's nephew owns a playback-video equipment firm, not because it will solve anything.

Are you suggesting ... gasp .... corruption?

[Burney]

Sounds better... how does it work on offside? Do they just play on and try to score or if it only when the ball goes straight in the net and nobody can say the offside flag changed the way they played?

Offside's another one. It's completely impossible for one man to be looking in two places at once. That they get it right as often as they do is remarkable given that they're invariably guessing. There at least you must concede there is a role for technology?

[SWv2]

Partially that was Blatter holding the game back - he refused to countenance the idea of technology and his word was law. No coincidence that we will have VAR at the World Cup and everywhere from next season now he is out of the way. Though it is still a pretty flawed system at the moment from what I have seen in the German game.

And the laws will remain the same regardless, despite some of them being ridiculous. I mean in the cold light of day, we can admit that Hector "probably" fouled the cheating little Belgian **** the other night, but in what insane system should that equate to almost an automatic goal (or with Cech in nets, an dead-cert goal). Makes very little sense

Unfortunately the FIFA Laws of the Game when taken literally mean the offence was a penalty in that it was a direct free kick offence which occurred in the penalty box.

The fact it then results in an almost definite goal is of course *******s but it’s no less silly than the same outcome resulting from Ramsey being pushed over in the box at Burnley. This one in fact is even more fúcking stupid when you see the amount of pushing and pulling that goes on at almost every corner kick in every match every weekend.

I don’t think many, certainly less (or fewer), would have cared about the call on Wednesday night had it not happened 3 days after Dean @ West Brom.

The laws of the game are a bit of a *******s but we like them when it goes in our favour and decry them when not.

[Burney]

Unfortunately the FIFA Laws of the Game when taken literally mean the offence was a penalty in that it was a direct free kick offence which occurred in the penalty box.

The fact it then results in an almost definite goal is of course *******s but it’s no less silly than the same outcome resulting from Ramsey being pushed over in the box at Burnley. This one in fact is even more fúcking stupid when you see the amount of pushing and pulling that goes on at almost every corner kick in every match every weekend.

I don’t think many, certainly less (or fewer), would have cared about the call on Wednesday night had it not happened 3 days after Dean @ West Brom.

The laws of the game are a bit of a *******s but we like them when it goes in our favour and decry them when not.

But it's certainly böllocks that you can chop a guy down when he's through on goal in one place and - while you will probably get a red card - there's only a slim chance they'll score from the resulting free-kick, but do it just in the box and it's a near-certain goal? That just makes no sense. I'd argue there's a good case for being able to award a penalty for certain offences wherever they occur on the pitch. Any straight red card offence should be a penalty imo - as should things you want to eliminate from the game like deliberate time-wasting, diving, etc.

[Sir C]

Unfortunately the FIFA Laws of the Game when taken literally mean the offence was a penalty in that it was a direct free kick offence which occurred in the penalty box.

The fact it then results in an almost definite goal is of course *******s but it’s no less silly than the same outcome resulting from Ramsey being pushed over in the box at Burnley. This one in fact is even more fúcking stupid when you see the amount of pushing and pulling that goes on at almost every corner kick in every match every weekend.

I don’t think many, certainly less (or fewer), would have cared about the call on Wednesday night had it not happened 3 days after Dean @ West Brom.

The laws of the game are a bit of a *******s but we like them when it goes in our favour and decry them when not.

Could you describe for us the wording within Law 12 which 'literally' defines the incident as a foul? Thanks.

[redgunamo]

Are you suggesting ... gasp .... corruption?

Just business. Everyone's in on it, so it can't be wrong, can it.

[redgunamo]

offences committed when the ball is in play."

Seriously though, Law 12 describes practically everything, up to and including, your mum.

Succinct genius, really.

Could you describe for us the wording within Law 12 which 'literally' defines the incident as a foul? Thanks.

[Sir C]

offences committed when the ball is in play."

Seriously though, Law 12 describes practically everything, up to and including, your mum.

Succinct genius, really.

I am familiar with law 12. The wording is ambiguous. There is no way of reading the rule which makes Bellerin's challenge an obvious penalty, as sw glibly chucked into the argument.

I can't abide glibness reg. You would do well to remember that.