Search results

The videos (highlights and full 90) are also available on the MFC app if you prefer using a hand-held device rather than a computer. And with either the website or the app, you can cast it to your TV using Chromecast.

Only if the entire £32.2 billion was generated in the UK. According to @Norman_Conquest's earlier post, only 5% of their profits came from their UK operations, and they don't expect to pay any tax on that after offsetting decommissioning and investment costs.

Exactly - in fact the High Court already ruled that the whole VIP lane arrangement should not have been allowed. UK government’s ‘VIP lane’ for PPE suppliers was unlawful, High Court rules

I've already posted an official response from the IFAB saying that's not true. It's where the actual contact took place that counts, not some other part of the player's anatomy.

That's not what the law is though, it's the location of the contact (which if there was any, was either with the back foot or the arm, outside the area) that counts. I had this confirmed by the IFAB via email, just yesterday. So assuming there was a foul, it should have been a direct free...

There are no set criteria for what level of error it needs to be for an appeal to succeed but based on the way it normally works, I think we can say that it has to be something fairly egregious. This wasn't an egregious error.

That's not the law though. Intent has not been a consideration for a physical contact foul since 1995.

Except that this particular kind of action is specifically covered in the laws. It's considered to be "making unauthorised marks on the field of play" and is listed as a mandatory caution in Law 1 - The Field of Play.

I think we would be crazy to appeal that. As far as I can see, the only valid argument over the decision is the question of the foul being inside or outside the area. But it's a denial of an obvious goal scoring opportunity either way.

Not really, at least not in the sense it's usually meant. That's only a valid criticism if the player is coming in from a relatively narrow angle. When the player is in more towards the centre as he was here, as a keeper you can't stay right on one post because then you're leaving the other side...

Carol Malone. I hadn't come across her on TV before, but she was on the Sky News Press Preview the other day. Not only does she spout the most awful nonsense but she does so by screaming over the top of everybody else trying to participate, at about 200 decibels.

If you're referring to his metal hip, that could hardly be described as assisting him. It could only ever be seen as a hindrance.

Altough, the relevant parts of it have already been quoted more than once, if you'd like the whole law, here it is. However nothing that I've posted goes against anything in any part of Law 11. You need to re-read what I've written. I never once said that you need to touch the ball to commit...

And I'm not trying to "prove" anything, I'm stating for a fact (as known by every referee at every level throughout the world) that Rashford could not have interfered with play as he didn't touch the ball. And I'm saying that it's debatable as to whether he interfered with an opponent or not...

Yes, if he had interfered with play, he would have committed an offside offense. Similarly if he had interfered with an opponent he would also have been guilty of an offside offense. However the fact that a number of different referees/ex-referees and match officials (including all those...

OK, but I'm not sure what argument you think I'm trying to make. I haven't made a claim that this was or wasn't offside. What I've done is quoted from the law and provided accurate explanations of it, which as I say is something I've been doing for over 30 years now. If you think I've...

You've just literally quoted from the law that shows that interfering with play and interfering with an opponent are two separate and distinctly defined clauses under the law. As the wording you've just quoted above shows, interfering play must involve a player "playing or touching a ball passed...

It's not being pedantic, it's literally something that's absolutely essential to understanding, interpreting and applying the offside law correctly - something that I've been doing as a referee for over 30 years now. Interfering with play and interfering with an opponent are two totally...

Try reading the law. As stated in Law 11, the only way a player can be guilty of interfering with play is: I think perhaps some of you are getting confused between what the law refers to as being "involved in active play" and what it defines as "interfering with play." Being involved in...

I read at least parts of the law every day - and in fact I just re-read Law 11 in it's entirety before posting on this thread. You might like to do the same, and if you do so, you'll find that everything I've written is in complete accord with the law as written. It's also in accord with all...