The person happiest with our 4-1 victory should have been Martin Atkinson

[World's End Stella]

as without our devastating comeback that appalling non-penalty decision might have been all over the papers and he might have found himself with some time on his hands for the next few weekends.

Quite how the useless tosser didn't give that is beyond me.

[Monty92]

as without our devastating comeback that appalling non-penalty decision might have been all over the papers and he might have found himself with some time on his hands for the next few weekends.

Quite how the useless tosser didn't give that is beyond me.

I guess he thought Dirty Sanchez went down too easily. If the ref gave a pelanty for every hand on a shoulder...and so on and so forth...

[Burney]

I guess he thought Dirty Sanchez went down too easily. If the ref gave a pelanty for every hand on a shoulder...and so on and so forth...

If the ref gave a pelanty for every hand on a shoulder... defenders would very quickly stop putting their hands on the shoulders of attackers.

As with most refereeing dilemmas, referees only have their own weakness and inconsistency to blame for any ambiguity in this area.

[Pat Vegas]

I guess he thought Dirty Sanchez went down too easily. If the ref gave a pelanty for every hand on a shoulder...and so on and so forth...

I don't think Sanchez would go down in that position unless he was pulled down.

[Norn Iron]

Shocking defending from Mustafi for their pen.

[Monty92]

If the ref gave a pelanty for every hand on a shoulder... defenders would very quickly stop putting their hands on the shoulders of attackers.

As with most refereeing dilemmas, referees only have their own weakness and inconsistency to blame for any ambiguity in this area.

Sure - I'm just explaining the ref's decision. And I think their bosses would frown upon it if they started unilaterally giving pelanties for every hand on a shoulder, so I'm not inclined to be too harsh on them.

[Monty92]

Shocking defending from Mustafi for their pen.

I think the unpredictable spin when the ball landed caught him out. Wasn't as bad as it looked.

[Burney]

Sure - I'm just explaining the ref's decision. And I think their bosses would frown upon it if they started unilaterally giving pelanties for every hand on a shoulder, so I'm not inclined to be too harsh on them.

The whole problem is that referees have always interpreted the laws of the game rather than enforced them. The fact is that the law is very clear and that there is no justification for one player to put his hands on another player at any time and that doing so should always be a foul. Only by introducing these grey areas have referees given themselves a problem.

It's a unique thing about football, actually, that habitual tolerance of illegality. It makes things flow and increases the rough and tumble, but it also makes the idea of consistent refereeing a virtual impossibility.

[Pat Vegas]

Shocking defending from Mustafi for their pen.

I liked Cech's Body Cech.

Glad the rules had changed otherwise he's probably be off.

[World's End Stella]

The whole problem is that referees have always interpreted the laws of the game rather than enforced them. The fact is that the law is very clear and that there is no justification for one player to put his hands on another player at any time and that doing so should always be a foul. Only by introducing these grey areas have referees given themselves a problem.

It's a unique thing about football, actually, that habitual tolerance of illegality. It makes things flow and increases the rough and tumble, but it also makes the idea of consistent refereeing a virtual impossibility.

Hmmm, not convinced that it is unique to football. Rugby, as an example, is filled with rule violations that are routinely tolerated, with the ball not being put in straight at the scrum being the most obvious of them. Same happens to be true in the American/Canadian sports I am familiar with. Interference in hockey, travelling in basketball being two other examples.

[Pat Vegas]

Hmmm, not convinced that it is unique to football. Rugby, as an example, is filled with rule violations that are routinely tolerated, with the ball not being put in straight at the scrum being the most obvious of them. Same happens to be true in the American/Canadian sports I am familiar with. Interference in hockey, travelling in basketball being two other examples.

I like when they just let them play, in the playoffs.
The officials judge the action on the ice and be lenient where needed

[Monty92]

The whole problem is that referees have always interpreted the laws of the game rather than enforced them. The fact is that the law is very clear and that there is no justification for one player to put his hands on another player at any time and that doing so should always be a foul. Only by introducing these grey areas have referees given themselves a problem.

It's a unique thing about football, actually, that habitual tolerance of illegality. It makes things flow and increases the rough and tumble, but it also makes the idea of consistent refereeing a virtual impossibility.

Yes, it's because everyone (fans and authorities) consider refereeing inconsistency to be a desirable feature of the game, when it is in fact a bug.

It's the same with the commonly accepted habit of refs "evening things up" or being less likely to give early bookings in high profile games, or shirt grabbing at set pieces being treated more leniently than in open play. Nothing at all in the laws about any of these things, yet we all accept them, for right or wrong. Then occasionally the FA will arbitrarily decide to clamp down on one of them, as they have with shirt pulling this season.

[Pat Vegas]

Yes, it's because the authorities consider refereeing inconsistency to be a feature of the game, when it is in fact a bug.

It's the same with the commonly accepted habit of refs "evening things up" or being less likely to give early bookings in high profile games, or shirt grabbing at set pieces being treated more leniently than in open play. Nothing at all in the laws about any of these things, yet we all accept them, for right or wrong. Then occasionally the FA will arbitrarily decide to clamp down on one of them, as they have with shirt pulling this season.

Speaking of yellow cards. I think it was Pienaar who got away scot-free after stopping Alexis in his tracks on the break.

[Burney]

Hmmm, not convinced that it is unique to football. Rugby, as an example, is filled with rule violations that are routinely tolerated, with the ball not being put in straight at the scrum being the most obvious of them. Same happens to be true in the American/Canadian sports I am familiar with. Interference in hockey, travelling in basketball being two other examples.

I meant unique in how endemic it is to the game. Virtually every aspect of football allows - even encourages - some degree of illegality. I can't think of another game like that.

[Burney]

Yes, it's because everyone (fans and authorities) consider refereeing inconsistency to be a desirable feature of the game, when it is in fact a bug.

It's the same with the commonly accepted habit of refs "evening things up" or being less likely to give early bookings in high profile games, or shirt grabbing at set pieces being treated more leniently than in open play. Nothing at all in the laws about any of these things, yet we all accept them, for right or wrong. Then occasionally the FA will arbitrarily decide to clamp down on one of them, as they have with shirt pulling this season.

It does, of course, ensure that commentators and fans get to have their cake and eat it on a regular basis. One minute they are castigating a referee for failing to enforce the law, the next they are castigating them for being 'over-fussy' when they do.

If it weren't for the fact that referees are, to a man and woman, deviant sex criminals, one might almost feel sorry for them.

[PSRB]

I think the unpredictable spin when the ball landed caught him out. Wasn't as bad as it looked.

Agreed, it was a horrid bounce. Not helped by the fact that 2 seconds earlier I'd just text my mate saying how fantastic Mustafi is

[Pat Vegas]

Agreed, it was a horrid bounce. Not helped by the fact that 2 seconds earlier I'd just text my mate saying how fantastic Mustafi is

:hehe: always the way. But our record with him on the pitch is excellent.

Unrelated I also have this weird thing when the other team makes a sub I will sometimes say I don't like the look of him
Then he'll come on to score.

[Burney]

Agreed, it was a horrid bounce. Not helped by the fact that 2 seconds earlier I'd just text my mate saying how fantastic Mustafi is

My father texted me 'Looks like November's started early' literally just as Giroud put it in the net to put us back in front. :hehe:

[Pat Vegas]

My father texted me 'Looks like November's started early' literally just as Giroud put it in the net to put us back in front. :hehe:

:hehe: I said to myself before he came on. Oh great, change the formation that's been working well for us lately, What the hell is Giroud gonna do.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

:hehe: I said to myself before he came on. Oh great, change the formation that's been working well for us lately, What the hell is Giroud gonna do.

I was pretty confident he was going to score. I even said "what are the odds he'll score with his first touch?" I was expecting a header from the corner though.

[Ash]

The whole problem is that referees have always interpreted the laws of the game rather than enforced them. The fact is that the law is very clear and that there is no justification for one player to put his hands on another player at any time and that doing so should always be a foul. Only by introducing these grey areas have referees given themselves a problem.


Once you make football a non-contact sport it opens a new can of something .... you'll have the Proper Football Man community being upset for a start.