The other mob

[the cry was no 3,044]

6 minutes ago, Inigo said:

I honestly don't see anything that definitively covers the situation that occurred with the throw in, so I don't see the issue that it was played on.

 

 

He must be 2m away, that's very definitive 

[ElBufalo20 7,936]

Castore going to make the Republic of Ireland top. The tarriers will be confused as fuck if they can buy it or not 

[Inigo 32,608]

15 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

He must be 2m away, that's very definitive 

Well, no, it says he 'must STAND 2 metres away'. The rule is clearly interpretable in this circumstance. He's not been given the opportunity to stand that far away because the Motherwell player stupidly threw it as the mhank was walking back in past him. 

The intent of that line is clearly to stop players intentionally standing too close to the thrower. Clearly by the use of the word 'stand', that legislation isn't intended to cover a player throwing the ball against a player that's quite naturally making his way back on to the pitch and not trying to get in the way.

Besides, I don't think he's a kick in the arse off 2 metres away. Not that I think it matters.

[bluenoz 31,088]

3 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Well, no, it says he 'must STAND 2 metres away'. The rule is clearly interpretable in this circumstance. He's not been given the opportunity to stand that far away because the Motherwell player stupidly threw it as the mhank was walking back in past him. 

The intent of that line is clearly to stop players intentionally standing too close to the thrower. Clearly by the use of the word 'stand', that legislation isn't intended to cover a player throwing the ball against a player that's quite naturally making his way back on to the pitch and not trying to get in the way.

Besides, I don't think he's a kick in the area of 2 metres away. Not that I think it matters.

He is off the field. It doesn't matter how far away he is. It must be retaken.

[Inigo 32,608]

Just now, bluenoz said:

He is off the field. It doesn't matter how far away he is. It must be retaken.

Ah right, ok. Where's that rule? Serious question.

[bluenoz 31,088]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

Ah right, ok. Where's that rule? Serious question.

I seriously don't know mate. Common sense would say an off-the-field player can't impede the game accidentally or not.

[bluenoz 31,088]

I would say every team has had a grievance since VAR was introduced but only one team feel so hard done by that they have to complain to the SFA.

[Inigo 32,608]

Just now, bluenoz said:

I seriously don't know mate. Common sense would say an off-the-field player can't impede the game accidentally or not.

I don't see that common sense doesn't come in to it, though. If there's nothing in the rules about a ball deflecting accidentally off a player who's off the pitch or whatever then the ref's entitled to allow play to go on.

[Inigo 32,608]

Just now, bluenoz said:

I would say every team has had a grievance since VAR was introduced but only one team feel so hard done by that they have to complain to the SFA.

Yes, pretty predictable that this would happen and be so well publicised.

[the cry was no 3,044]

2 minutes ago, Inigo said:

I don't see that common sense doesn't come in to it, though. If there's nothing in the rules about a ball deflecting accidentally off a player who's off the pitch or whatever then the ref's entitled to allow play to go on.

I agree it's a grey area but I genuinely can't see any circumstances in which a player off the field can play the ball, deliberately or not, and that be deemed to be ok.

You simply can't play the ball out of the "area of play" is how I see it. I'd have thought that was so fundamental and obvious 

[Inigo 32,608]

7 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

I agree it's a grey area but I genuinely can't see any circumstances in which a player off the field can play the ball, deliberately or not, and that be deemed to be ok.

You simply can't play the ball out of the "area of play" is how I see it. I'd have thought that was so fundamental and obvious 

I think everything that's necessary for the throw to have been deemed as properly taken is detailed in the laws. In this circumstance as long as the thrower has followed the directions on how to take it, it seems like it doesn't matter if it hits a pigeon or the linesman or a player after the throw as long is it enters the field. I don't see an issue with the ref allowing play to go on given that no rule has been infringed (that we can tell). Surely everything that constitutes an infringement during a match is detailed in the laws. 

[the cry was no 3,044]

23 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Well, no, it says he 'must STAND 2 metres away'. The rule is clearly interpretable in this circumstance. He's not been given the opportunity to stand that far away because the Motherwell player stupidly threw it as the mhank was walking back in past him. 

The intent of that line is clearly to stop players intentionally standing too close to the thrower. Clearly by the use of the word 'stand', that legislation isn't intended to cover a player throwing the ball against a player that's quite naturally making his way back on to the pitch and not trying to get in the way.

Besides, I don't think he's a kick in the arse off 2 metres away. Not that I think it matters.

That all just interpretation mate.

He wasn't 2m and he was standing, nothing else matters

[the cry was no 3,044]

6 minutes ago, Inigo said:

I think everything that's necessary for the throw to have been deemed as properly taken is detailed in the laws. In this circumstance as long as the thrower has followed the directions on how to take it, it seems like it doesn't matter if it hits a pigeon or the linesman or a player after the throw as long is it enters the field. I don't see an issue with the ref allowing play to go on given that no rule has been infringed (that we can tell). Surely everything that constitutes an infringement during a match is detailed in the laws. 

He wasn't 2m away and he was standing, are we just going to ignore that 

Do you genuinely believe that if the ball hit the linesman or a pigeon and went into play they'd play on? Really? 

[Inigo 32,608]

1 minute ago, the cry was no said:

That all just interpretation mate.

He wasn't 2m and he was standing, nothing else matters

Many football laws have to be interpreted. The meaning of 'must stand two metres away' definitely does here.

[Inigo 32,608]

Just now, the cry was no said:

He wasn't 2m away and he was standing, are we just going to ignore that 

Do you genuinely believe that if the ball hit the linesman or a pigeon and went into play they'd play on? Really? 

Absolutely. Where does it say it shouldn't? The linesman maybe not because of the recent rules about ball contact with officials, but that's the whole point... The rule would be there.

[the cry was no 3,044]

1 minute ago, Inigo said:

Many football laws have to be interpreted. The meaning of 'must stand two metres away' definitely does here.

The only consideration is if they are 2m away and standing that's not realistically open to any further interpretation

[teddybear1975 2,062]

[Inigo 32,608]

10 minutes ago, the cry was no said:

The only consideration is if they are 2m away and standing that's not realistically open to any further interpretation

Of course it is. Standing as opposed to walking back on to the pitch at the point you came off the pitch.

Also has to be clear and obvious btw, and there's no way VAR are going to make a judgement from that angle that he's less than 2m (just over a body length) away.

 

[the cry was no 3,044]

10 minutes ago, Inigo said:

Absolutely. Where does it say it shouldn't? The linesman maybe not because of the recent rules about ball contact with officials, but that's the whole point... The rule would be there.

I'd think a pigeon or dog or fox or whatever would be covered by "outside agent" and the game would be stopped if the ball hit them

 

[Inigo 32,608]

Just now, the cry was no said:

I'd think a pigeon or dog or fox or whatever would be covered by "outside agent" and the game would be stopped if the ball hit them

 

Ok. So the rule covers that too.

[Blueshoff 11,922]

8 hours ago, bluenoz said:

I would say every team has had a grievance since VAR was introduced but only one team feel so hard done by that they have to complain to the SFA.

They probably had a template ready 

[superallysbears 7,769]

No even surprised at the scum having the most to say about VAR, imo, they got away with one for the second goal against Motherwell, bastards are complaining because it's now alot harder to Ref them the way they expect, now the toys are out the pram.

[Bad Robot 21,458]

1 hour ago, superallysbears said:

No even surprised at the scum having the most to say about VAR, imo, they got away with one for the second goal against Motherwell, bastards are complaining because it's now alot harder to Ref them the way they expect, now the toys are out the pram.

The papers are publishing a VAR tv angle to get them all riled up knowing it was a different VAR angle that was used to call an offside against them.

[superallysbears 7,769]

25 minutes ago, Bad Robot said:

The papers are publishing a VAR tv angle to get them all riled up knowing it was a different VAR angle that was used to call an offside against them.

Exactly my thoughts on it, Joseph Goebbels would be proud of the lengths they go to for the scum.

[McEwan's Lager 30,808]

13 hours ago, Inigo said:

Of course it is. Standing as opposed to walking back on to the pitch at the point you came off the pitch.

Also has to be clear and obvious btw, and there's no way VAR are going to make a judgement from that angle that he's less than 2m (just over a body length) away.

 

Not wanting to reignite this debate but can VAR be used to chalk off goals for errors at throw ins?

I've seen a few times now where goals were scored from passages of play that began with a throw in and its arguable it was a foul throw and they haven't been overturned.