Fifa Women's World Cup

[John Findlay]

2 minutes ago, colinmaroon said:

 

So, the SFA have been secretly training female referees.  That wasn't incompetence!  Japan had to get through!

 

Lexus top of the range on the way!!!

Only Lexus are South Korean?

[shaun.lawson]

36 minutes ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

There is something fishy going on judging by today's use of or lack of using VAR in our case. 

 

There's certainly something fishy going on when people like you don't understand VAR in any way.

 

VAR is used for everything. Every goal, every potential penalty, is checked. If the VAR team think the referee has made a "clear and obvious error", they ask her to review it on the screen. In the case of the two possible penalties, the ref not giving either was, in theory at least, justifiable (note, that's not the same as saying 'correct')... so they weren't clear and obvious errors.

 

The handball law, incidentally, says nothing about 'ball to hand/hand to ball/deliberate/accidental' any longer. It's about whether the hand's in an 'unnatural position' and therefore making the body 'unnaturally bigger'. I think Scotland would've probably been given a penalty under the old law; not so much under the new one.

 

This is the full wording:

 

A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:

- the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm
- a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Having an arm above shoulder height will now be considered an automatic handball.

 

There is no offence if:

- the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
- if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
- If the goalkeeper attempts to "clear" (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the "clearance" fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

 

What I've emboldened there is why the pen wasn't given. 

 

Now - is there a huge problem with the handball law? You bet. It's a total shambles. These laws are being written by people who don't understand the game and more than likely have never played it at any kind of decent level. It's causing confusion for players, much more for fans, and it's leaving this sense of complete randomness about decisions.

 

But under the letter of the law, the ref was probably correct with all her decisions today (other than the joke offside, that is). I know that seems crazy - but it's true.

Edited June 14, 2019 by shaun.lawson

[Felix Lighter]

Barry the Crab doing basketball was as blatant.

[colinmaroon]

2 minutes ago, John Findlay said:

Only Lexus are South Korean?

 

 

They couldn't give her a Toyota, that would be too obvious.

 

 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

4 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

I thought that the folk in the VAR room would have reviewed it and relayed to the ref nothing to see here play on.  The ref will only go to the review screen if the VAR team suggest it is worth a look.

This of course raises the question what the heck did the VAR team think when they saw the hand ball?  They must of thought it was not a foul or heavens for did they just ignored it.

Looks like they just shrugged and said " it's only a Diddy nation. Nothing to see here" 

[Shaggy2]

6 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

I thought that the folk in the VAR room would have reviewed it and relayed to the ref nothing to see here play on.  The ref will only go to the review screen if the VAR team suggest it is worth a look.

This of course raises the question what the heck did the VAR team think when they saw the hand ball?  They must of thought it was not a foul or heavens for did they just ignored it.

The top boy in the VAR caravan was Italian and therefore not corruptible in the slightest when it comes to football. I think he was the same guy as Sunday when England got theirs. ?

[shaun.lawson]

8 minutes ago, joondalupjambo said:

This of course raises the question what the heck did the VAR team think when they saw the hand ball?  They must of thought it was not a foul or heavens for did they just ignored it.

 

They saw that under the new handball law, it wasn't a penalty. Because the defender didn't make her body unnaturally bigger when the ball touched her hand. 

[Felix Lighter]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

There's certainly something fishy going on when people like you don't understand VAR in any way.

 

VAR is used for everything. Every goal, every potential penalty, is checked. If the VAR team think the referee has made a "clear and obvious error", they ask her to review it on the screen. In the case of the two possible penalties, the ref not giving either was, in theory at least, justifiable (note, that's not the same as saying 'correct')... so they weren't clear and obvious errors.

 

The handball law, incidentally, says nothing about 'ball to hand/hand to ball/deliberate/accidental' any longer. It's about whether the hand's in an 'unnatural position' and therefore making the body 'unnaturally bigger'. I think Scotland would've probably been given a penalty under the old law; not so much under the new one.

 

This is the full wording:

 

A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:

- the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm
- a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Having an arm above shoulder height will now be considered an automatic handball.

 

There is no offence if:

- the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
- if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
- If the goalkeeper attempts to "clear" (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the "clearance" fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

 

What I've emboldened there is why the pen wasn't given. 

 

Now - is there a huge problem with the handball law? You bet. It's a total shambles. These laws are being written by people who don't understand the game and more than likely have never played it at any kind of decent level. It's causing confusion for players, much more for fans, and it's leaving this sense of complete randomness about decisions.

 

But under the letter of the law, the ref was probably correct with all her decisions today (other than the joke offside, that is). I know that seems crazy - but it's true.

 

Bullshit, she's used her arm to control the ball and gain advantage imo.

That VAR didn't consider is a joke. 

[Taffin]

6 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

There's certainly something fishy going on when people like you don't understand VAR in any way.

 

VAR is used for everything. Every goal, every potential penalty, is checked. If the VAR team think the referee has made a "clear and obvious error", they ask her to review it on the screen. In the case of the two possible penalties, the ref not giving either was, in theory at least, justifiable (note, that's not the same as saying 'correct')... so they weren't clear and obvious errors.

 

The handball law, incidentally, says nothing about 'ball to hand/hand to ball/deliberate/accidental' any longer. It's about whether the hand's in an 'unnatural position' and therefore making the body 'unnaturally bigger'. I think Scotland would've probably been given a penalty under the old law; not so much under the new one.

 

This is the full wording:

 

A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:

- the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm
- a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Having an arm above shoulder height will now be considered an automatic handball.

 

There is no offence if:

- the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
- if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
- If the goalkeeper attempts to "clear" (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the "clearance" fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

 

What I've emboldened there is why the pen wasn't given. 

 

Now - is there a huge problem with the handball law? You bet. It's a total shambles. These laws are being written by people who don't understand the game and more than likely have never played it at any kind of decent level. It's causing confusion for players, much more for fans, and it's leaving this sense of complete randomness about decisions.

 

But under the letter of the law, the ref was probably correct with all her decisions today (other than the joke offside, that is). I know that seems crazy - but it's true.

 

Her hand was about as far away from the body as possible without removing your shoulder from it's socket.

 

Loads of words for ultimately, nonsense. Thanks Shaun.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Taffin said:

 

Her hand was about as far away from the body as possible without removing your shoulder from it's socket.

 

Loads of words for ultimately, nonsense. Thanks Shaun.

 

Wrong. She moves her hand towards her body. She's actually making it unnaturally smaller. 

[buzz]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

They saw that under the new handball law, it wasn't a penalty. Because the defender didn't make her body unnaturally bigger when the ball touched her hand. 

Are we saying that it’s now ok to just bat the ball away from an opponent as long as the ball is close to you?

[shaun.lawson]

2 minutes ago, Felix Lighter said:

 

Bullshit, she's used her arm to control the ball and gain advantage imo.

That VAR didn't consider is a joke. 

 

VAR did consider it. VAR considers everything. 

[All roads lead to Gorgie]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

There's certainly something fishy going on when people like you don't understand VAR in any way.

 

VAR is used for everything. Every goal, every potential penalty, is checked. If the VAR team think the referee has made a "clear and obvious error", they ask her to review it on the screen. In the case of the two possible penalties, the ref not giving either was, in theory at least, justifiable (note, that's not the same as saying 'correct')... so they weren't clear and obvious errors.

 

The handball law, incidentally, says nothing about 'ball to hand/hand to ball/deliberate/accidental' any longer. It's about whether the hand's in an 'unnatural position' and therefore making the body 'unnaturally bigger'. I think Scotland would've probably been given a penalty under the old law; not so much under the new one.

 

This is the full wording:

 

A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:

- the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm
- a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Having an arm above shoulder height will now be considered an automatic handball.

 

There is no offence if:

- the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
- if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
- If the goalkeeper attempts to "clear" (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the "clearance" fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

 

What I've emboldened there is why the pen wasn't given. 

 

Now - is there a huge problem with the handball law? You bet. It's a total shambles. These laws are being written by people who don't understand the game and more than likely have never played it at any kind of decent level. It's causing confusion for players, much more for fans, and it's leaving this sense of complete randomness about decisions.

 

But under the letter of the law, the ref was probably correct with all her decisions today (other than the joke offside, that is). I know that seems crazy - but it's true.

People like me are only looking for consistency. They have opened a hornets nest here and to make it work every handball whether it is deliberate or not has to be a penalty otherwise scrap the law. 

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

VAR did consider it. VAR considers everything. 

Strange that they didn't find one wrong decision in that game then...Perhaps the VAR ref slept in and missed the game?

[Shaggy2]

6 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

There's certainly something fishy going on when people like you don't understand VAR in any way.

 

VAR is used for everything. Every goal, every potential penalty, is checked. If the VAR team think the referee has made a "clear and obvious error", they ask her to review it on the screen. In the case of the two possible penalties, the ref not giving either was, in theory at least, justifiable (note, that's not the same as saying 'correct')... so they weren't clear and obvious errors.

 

The handball law, incidentally, says nothing about 'ball to hand/hand to ball/deliberate/accidental' any longer. It's about whether the hand's in an 'unnatural position' and therefore making the body 'unnaturally bigger'. I think Scotland would've probably been given a penalty under the old law; not so much under the new one.

 

This is the full wording:

 

A free kick or penalty will be awarded if:

- the ball goes into the goal after touching an attacking player's hand/arm
- a player gains control/possession of the ball after it touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which has made their body unnaturally bigger
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm when it is above their shoulder (unless the player has deliberately played the ball which then touches their hand/arm)

Having an arm above shoulder height will now be considered an automatic handball.

 

There is no offence if:

- the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
- if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
- If the goalkeeper attempts to "clear" (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the "clearance" fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

 

What I've emboldened there is why the pen wasn't given. 

 

Now - is there a huge problem with the handball law? You bet. It's a total shambles. These laws are being written by people who don't understand the game and more than likely have never played it at any kind of decent level. It's causing confusion for players, much more for fans, and it's leaving this sense of complete randomness about decisions.

 

But under the letter of the law, the ref was probably correct with all her decisions today (other than the joke offside, that is). I know that seems crazy - but it's true.

So, putting your hand away from your own body, across your opponent’s body and moving it towards the ball is natural and ok?

Cuthbert has that ball completely under her control and the Japanese lass would probably have received a yellow in rugby for a deliberate knock on!

[kila]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Wrong. She moves her hand towards her body. She's actually making it unnaturally smaller. 

 

What a load of shite you talk! You need to wipe your arse as well as your face it seems.

 

 

 

 

[Hackney Hearts]

10 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

... so they weren't clear and obvious errors.

 

There is no offence if:

- the ball touches a player's hand/arm directly from their own head/body/foot or the head/body/foot of another player who is close/near
- the ball touches a player's hand/arm which is close to their body and has not made their body unnaturally bigger
- if a player is falling and the ball touches their hand/arm when it is between their body and the ground to support the body (but not extended to make the body bigger)
- If the goalkeeper attempts to "clear" (release into play) a throw-in or deliberate kick from a teammate but the "clearance" fails, the goalkeeper can then handle the ball

 

What I've emboldened there is why the pen wasn't given. 

 

 

This is nonsense! The player's arm was raised horizontal! 

The only sense in which it was "close to the body" is that it was ATTACHED to the body. You won't get many clearer handballs than that, old rule or new, without someone actually catching it.

 

It was a clear and obvious error.

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, buzz said:

Are we saying that it’s now ok to just bat the ball away from an opponent as long as the ball is close to you?

 

No. We're saying it's OK if the ball touches your hand and you're not making your body unnaturally bigger in the first place. In which direction did her arm move? Towards her body, not away from it.

 

As my post said, is the law now a total shambles? Yes it is. If the law's not sorted out, I dread to think how much of a farce the sport will become. The wording's so bad, it's going to confuse referees too. But her arm moving towards her body is why the pen wasn't given - and as the ref can justify that, that's in turn why the VAR team didn't consider it a clear and obvious error. 

 

By the same token:

 

1. Japan's penalty wasn't a clear and obvious error, so VAR didn't ask the ref to review it

 

2. The problem against England was the defender moved her arm away from her body, therefore making it bigger. Which is why VAR did ask the ref to review it. 

 

Do I think any of this should be the case in spirit? No: the law's a joke. But right now, that's where we stand. And in all cases, the person who makes the final decision remains, of course, the referee.

[Hackney Hearts]

10 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

They saw that under the new handball law, it wasn't a penalty. Because the defender didn't make her body unnaturally bigger when the ball touched her hand. 

 

You must be trolling.

[shaun.lawson]

5 minutes ago, All roads lead to Gorgie said:

People like me are only looking for consistency. They have opened a hornets nest here and to make it work every handball whether it is deliberate or not has to be a penalty otherwise scrap the law. 

 

Oh yes. They certainly have. In the legal system, justice must be done and be seen to be done - otherwise the rule of law has no credibility. It's the same here. They keep pissing around with the laws and confusing everyone in sight. That's terrible for the sport.

[Hackney Hearts]

8 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Wrong. She moves her hand towards her body. She's actually making it unnaturally smaller. 

 

Her arm is raised wide, she makes contact with the ball, then shields it from Cuthbert by lowering her arm.

[Spellczech]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

No. We're saying it's OK if the ball touches your hand and you're not making your body unnaturally bigger in the first place. In which direction did her arm move? Towards her body, not away from it.

 

As my post said, is the law now a total shambles? Yes it is. If the law's not sorted out, I dread to think how much of a farce the sport will become. The wording's so bad, it's going to confuse referees too. But her arm moving towards her body is why the pen wasn't given - and as the ref can justify that, that's in turn why the VAR team didn't consider it a clear and obvious error. 

 

By the same token:

 

1. Japan's penalty wasn't a clear and obvious error, so VAR didn't ask the ref to review it

 

2. The problem against England was the defender moved her arm away from her body, therefore making it bigger. Which is why VAR did ask the ref to review it. 

 

Do I think any of this should be the case in spirit? No: the law's a joke. But right now, that's where we stand. And in all cases, the person who makes the final decision remains, of course, the referee.

You realise that you are saying is that if the player is jumping then it is a penalty on the way up but not on the way down?

[Hackney Hearts]

11 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

VAR did consider it. VAR considers everything. 

 

That's what I assumed. If they did and saw nothing, that's very worrying.

[shaun.lawson]

6 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

Strange that they didn't find one wrong decision in that game then...Perhaps the VAR ref slept in and missed the game?

 

Or alternatively, either:

 

1. The ref didn't make any clear and obvious errors (which isn't the same as saying no errors: it just means the burden of proof is higher, because FIFA want to leave it up to the ref as far as possible)

 

2. Human nature may, maybe, have left the VAR team more reluctant to interfere because, well, what have we had over the last few days? Constant slagging off of VAR! 

 

In the end, how do we ever get consistency in decisions? God knows. Essentially because football has laws, not rules. Rules are black and white; laws are open to interpretation.

[Diadora Van Basten]

Some of the worst refereeing I have ever seen and VAR did nothing to help.

 

Oh and Lawson is a troll. 

[Hackney Hearts]

6 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

In which direction did her arm move? Towards her body, not away from it.

 

 

WRONG! Look again.

 

(or stop deliberately winding folk up)

[kila]

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

Or alternatively, either:

 

1. The ref didn't make any clear and obvious errors (which isn't the same as saying no errors: it just means the burden of proof is higher, because FIFA want to leave it up to the ref as far as possible)

 

2. Human nature may, maybe, have left the VAR team more reluctant to interfere because, well, what have we had over the last few days? Constant slagging off of VAR! 

 

In the end, how do we ever get consistency in decisions? God knows. Essentially because football has laws, not rules. Rules are black and white; laws are open to interpretation.

 

Will you admit you were talking shite with your essay and that her arm did move out to her advantage and it should have been a penalty?

 

 

 

[shaun.lawson]

3 minutes ago, Spellczech said:

You realise that you are saying is that if the player is jumping then it is a penalty on the way up but not on the way down?

 

Depends entirely on whether the arm is above shoulder height or not. 

 

Is wording of the new law absurd? Yes. But referees and VAR can't make up their own laws, however absurd the new law is.

[Spellczech]

Just now, shaun.lawson said:

 

Or alternatively, either:

 

1. The ref didn't make any clear and obvious errors (which isn't the same as saying no errors: it just means the burden of proof is higher, because FIFA want to leave it up to the ref as far as possible)

 

2. Human nature may, maybe, have left the VAR team more reluctant to interfere because, well, what have we had over the last few days? Constant slagging off of VAR! 

 

In the end, how do we ever get consistency in decisions? God knows. Essentially because football has laws, not rules. Rules are black and white; laws are open to interpretation.

I think the handball one was a definite case where the ref should've been called over to review onscreen. The Japanese player knocked the ball down with her arm and ran off down the pitch with it...She basically controlled the ball with her arm.

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, kila said:

 

Will you admit you were talking shite with your essay and that her arm did move out to her advantage and it should have been a penalty?

 

 

 

 

Nope, because it moves back towards her. 

[Hackney Hearts]

1 minute ago, Spellczech said:

I think the handball one was a definite case where the ref should've been called over to review onscreen. The Japanese player knocked the ball down with her arm and ran off down the pitch with it...She basically controlled the ball with her arm.

 

Exactly. But Shaun seems to want to ignore this in order to justify his essay on the laws.

[kila]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

Nope, because it moves back towards her. 

 

Is that before or after the ball hits her arm?

 

Do you have nothing better to do in life than troll online?

 

 

 

 

 

[JamboGraham]

3 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

Nope, because it moves back towards her. 

 

Lies or trolling...take your pick...

[Hackney Hearts]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Nope, because it moves back towards her. 

 

After she's handled it Shaun. Why is everyone seeing this but you I wonder?

[Gizmo]

21 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Wrong. She moves her hand towards her body. She's actually making it unnaturally smaller. 

 

Yes, whilst controlling the bloody ball. 

 

[Nookie Bear]

5 minutes ago, kila said:

 

Is that before or after the ball hits her arm?

 

Do you have nothing better to do in life than troll online?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Penalty all day long. 

[Shaggy2]

Let’s face it, it was a horrendous refereeing performance all round. Her day was summed up when she blocked the run of Emslie who was just about to pick up a return pass in a great attacking position about 35 yards from goal. This VAR controversy shouldn’t overshadow that. 

[Felix Lighter]

22 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Wrong. She moves her hand towards her body. She's actually making it unnaturally smaller. 

 

To gain an advantage, what is the difference between making your body unnaturally smaller,rather than unnaturally bigger? 

It's a penalty every day of the feckin millenium

[shaun.lawson]

1 minute ago, Gizmo said:

 

Yes, whilst controlling the bloody ball. 

 

 

Where does the new law even mention that? It doesn't. QED.

 

As I keep repeating, do I think the new law is based on even 1% of common sense? No. The new law is crazy (much as, as we saw yesterday, the offside law is borderline crazy). But the law is the law is the law.

 

Meanwhile, Shelley Kerr's got herself a cushty gig, hasn't she? Screw the tactics up in both games. Be far too timid and far too passive in both games, only waking up when 2-0 down. Leave Scotland's best player against England on the bench today. And then have everyone blaming the ref instead of looking at her afterwards!

 

Remarkable.. 

[shaun.lawson]

Just now, Felix Lighter said:

 

To gain an advantage, what is the difference between making your body unnaturally smaller,rather than unnaturally bigger? 

It's a penalty every day of the feckin millenium

 

Another one who's not even looked at the wording of the new law.

[Taffin]

28 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Wrong. She moves her hand towards her body. She's actually making it unnaturally smaller. 

 

No, she moves her arm across Cuthbert and away from her own body and it hits her forearm.

[Taffin]

11 minutes ago, JamboGraham said:

 

Lies or trolling...take your pick...

 

Option 3 - deluded

[Maroon Sailor]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Where does the new law even mention that? It doesn't. QED.

 

As I keep repeating, do I think the new law is based on even 1% of common sense? No. The new law is crazy (much as, as we saw yesterday, the offside law is borderline crazy). But the law is the law is the law.

 

Meanwhile, Shelley Kerr's got herself a cushty gig, hasn't she? Screw the tactics up in both games. Be far too timid and far too passive in both games, only waking up when 2-0 down. Leave Scotland's best player against England on the bench today. And then have everyone blaming the ref instead of looking at her afterwards!

 

Remarkable.. 

 

You must have missed my post when I put the blame firmly on Shelley for that result.

 

Then again you have blinkered vision

[kila]

4 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Where does the new law even mention that? It doesn't. QED.

 

As I keep repeating, do I think the new law is based on even 1% of common sense? No. The new law is crazy (much as, as we saw yesterday, the offside law is borderline crazy). But the law is the law is the law.

 

Meanwhile, Shelley Kerr's got herself a cushty gig, hasn't she? Screw the tactics up in both games. Be far too timid and far too passive in both games, only waking up when 2-0 down. Leave Scotland's best player against England on the bench today. And then have everyone blaming the ref instead of looking at her afterwards!

 

Remarkable.. 

 

Changing the topic already! Just admit you talk shite sometimes and we can move on! Blatant penalty in new rules.

 

Kerr not starting Emslie was a shocker though I agree.

[Felix Lighter]

2 minutes ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

Another one who's not even looked at the wording of the new law.

 

She controlled the ball with her arm Shaun, I don't have to read yours or your regurgitated fifa pish.

 

[Taffin]

Shaun out walking with his limbs in totally natural positions

[Hackney Hearts]

1 minute ago, shaun.lawson said:

Where does the new law even mention that? It doesn't. QED.

 

As I keep repeating, do I think the new law is based on even 1% of common sense? No. The new law is crazy (much as, as we saw yesterday, the offside law is borderline crazy). But the law is the law is the law.

 

This is the trouble - you've got fixated on the new law - and are trying to make this incident fit your argument. It doesn't.

 

Yes, the new law is crazy. But new law or old, this is a penalty. Is she making her body bigger? (physically impossible btw)

Of course she is - her arm starts bent, she straightens it out to make contact with the ball - the space her body covers (this is presumably what they mean) has been deliberately made bigger. Only then does her arm come down towards her body. I genuinely don't understand how you can't see that. Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're being serious.

 

Quote

 

Meanwhile, Shelley Kerr's got herself a cushty gig, hasn't she? Screw the tactics up in both games. Be far too timid and far too passive in both games, only waking up when 2-0 down. Leave Scotland's best player against England on the bench today. And then have everyone blaming the ref instead of looking at her afterwards!

Remarkable.. 

 

 

I agree with this!

[Alex Kintner]

This sort of controversy was always on the cards.

[Hackney Hearts]

1 minute ago, To Be Frank said:

This sort of controversy was always on the cards.

 

Yep - as soon as you introduce technology to eliminate controversy. Inevitable.

[Bull's-eye]

England playing tonight ▪▪▪▪check

 

Walter Mitty appears to upset the natives ▪▪▪▪check

 

Will inevitably make a ***** of himself and scuttle away to a Newcastle forum ▪▪▪▪ check/fingers crossed.