comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 2 minutes ago
I have a degree and a postgraduate diploma in legal practice. I have done courses on both legal drafting and legal writing. I have a very good understanding of the importance of ensuring that something is defined and enforceable so that it can actually be enforced.
---------
How many of those Houses of Parliament g0ons also have post graduate degrees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares? Or are you one of those brexity "had enough of experts" types?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely my point, who cares.
I know many people with post-graduate degrees and their common sense is comparable to a turnip.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, and how is their knowledge in the specific area that they have a postgraduate in? Since that is the topic of discussion.
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 7 minutes ago
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, the ball is well passed mane before Jota gets to it!
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's laughable about it?
The ball was passed directly into Mane's path, who was offside?
It's only because he left the ball that it was not classed as offside.
This isn't a dig at Liverpool getting favoured, which is why Liverpool fans are all over this article, it's a dig at the crap rule that has been created. I see similar scenarios every other game.
I can't quite see how anyone can think that it isn't interfering with play?
Would you mind explaining how Liverpool's best player, who is stood behind West ham defenders, in the goalkeepers line of sight, in an offside position, had a ball played towards him (which he left), is not classed as interfering with play?
United benefitted from it a while back too and I had the same views.
The rule is rubbish. Plain and simple.
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's laughable about it?
The ball was passed directly into Mane's path, who was offside?
It's only because he left the ball that it was not classed as offside.
This isn't a dig at Liverpool getting favoured, which is why Liverpool fans are all over this article, it's a dig at the crap rule that has been created. I see similar scenarios every other game.
I can't quite see how anyone can think that it isn't interfering with play?
Would you mind explaining how Liverpool's best player, who is stood behind West ham defenders, in the goalkeepers line of sight, in an offside position, had a ball played towards him (which he left), is not classed as interfering with play?
United benefitted from it a while back too and I had the same views.
The rule is rubbish. Plain and simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
comment by KLS (U1695)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Martial Law (U13506)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Liverpool are relentless when searching for a winner. Reminds me of Fergie vintage. They are also so selfless especially Mane, something you hope other teams will learn. The hammers had an opportunity earlier to go one up but Fornals did not pass the ball to his teammate who was in a better position.
Klopp has done a fantastic job building a culture where the attackers dont care who is putting the Ball in the net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really true
Salah is one of the greediest players in the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably why he’s been one of the highest scorers since coming to the league. He also has a very high assist ratio but let’s not let that get in the way of the greedy narrative!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of things...your own fans complain about his selfishness and the point I was referring to was his comment that no one in the Liverpool teams attack is selfish which isn’t true
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 16 minutes ago
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is the correct reaction you should have towards yourself when you have familiarised yourself with the laws.
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 16 minutes ago
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is the correct reaction you should have towards yourself when you have familiarised yourself with the laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the article is the law is incorrect, but I wouldn't expect an intellectual post-grad to get that.
As Winston said, its pointless discussing it with you.
A degree in legal practice. What’s that got to do with the offside law?
<law>
Suddenly it’s becoming clear why welshpool just doesn’t get it, though.
The fouls and misconduct law must be a real headfack for him.
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 16 minutes ago
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is the correct reaction you should have towards yourself when you have familiarised yourself with the laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the article is the law is incorrect, but I wouldn't expect an intellectual post-grad to get that.
As Winston said, its pointless discussing it with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law isn't incorrect, you just don't like it because it was correctly applied and benefitted Liverpool.
Strange how you keep having to resort to personal insults because your argument is so weak it was dismissed ages ago.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
A degree in legal practice. What’s that got to do with the offside law?
<law>
Suddenly it’s becoming clear why welshpool just doesn’t get it, though.
The fouls and misconduct law must be a real headfack for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, all the fouls in the fouls and misconduct laws are pretty well defined and enforceable.
Your entire argument is that the offside law would be better placed if we removed some of the definition in it, so that line of view covered more things. Either this means line of view covers everything a player can see, or you have to add extra restrictions to make it work in practice. Simply saying "use common sense" will not work and is a laughable handwave.
Imagine getting rid of the defined speed limits so that the law was simply "don't drive too fast". People would ask how fast is "too fast" and be told "it is common sense". It would be a farce and be open to ridiculous abuse.
I didn’t say the law should be to use common sense.
I laughed because you’re incapable of using common sense to understand the difference between two scenarios.
Imagine if we defined a yellow card offence as ‘reckless’ and a referee had to make their own mind up as to whether a challenge was reckless.
Imagine.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I didn’t say the law should be to use common sense.
I laughed because you’re incapable of using common sense to understand the difference between two scenarios.
Imagine if we defined a yellow card offence as ‘reckless’ and a referee had to make their own mind up as to whether a challenge was reckless.
Imagine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and the definition of reckless is provided to help.
This is the opposite of what you suggested. You suggested that any offside player who is in a defenders line of view should be offside (the only way to make Mane offside in this specific incident). This would mean any offside player who was ina defenders line of view, regardless of position on pitch would be offside. You cannot apy.common sense because there is nothing to apply common sense too.
The only interpretations the ref could apply in such a case is:
Was he in an offside position? Yes/no
Was he in the line of view of a defending player? Yes/no.
You need to have written more to the law to make it usable or my situation of the goalie being able to see every player down the pitch would mean we essentially go back to the days of any offside is offside regardless of interfering with play.
To avoid this situation, a reasonable lawmaker would add criteria to the law. Something like being in the line of view which impacts on a defenders ability to play the ball would probably work... which is almost certainly how the current law was created.
So please do feel free to detail how you would define your alternative law that makes Mane offside, but isn't hugely broad, because it is pointless saying this law is bad and needs to be changed, you need to give a workable alternative.
“ You suggested that any offside player who is in a defenders line of view should be offside”
No I didn’t.
As usual, you’re making things up.
Referees have to use their own judgement to determine what is reckless, just as they can use their own judgement to determine what classifies as ‘interfering with play’.
Just because you struggle with laws that do not have precise, black and white definitions does not mean everyone else does.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
“ You suggested that any offside player who is in a defenders line of view should be offside”
No I didn’t.
As usual, you’re making things up.
Referees have to use their own judgement to determine what is reckless, just as they can use their own judgement to determine what classifies as ‘interfering with play’.
Just because you struggle with laws that do not have precise, black and white definitions does not mean everyone else does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again Winston.
You really struggle with this concept of things having an actual definition and meaning. I understand these things, which is why I actually understand how written laws work.
Your go to argument is always that "referees can interpret" but since not all interpretations are valid, referees are limited in the interpretations they make.
Referees can only use their judgement to determine what reckless is based on the definition of the word reckless, which is why refs don't throw around red and yellow cards for every foul. They cannot and do not determine them as reckless.
Similarly there are very specific criteria to what constitutes "interfering with play". The refereed can interpret whether the existing situation meets one of that criteria, but only within the restrictions laid out by that criteria.
In theory a referee could try to claim that he "interpreted" the player on the left wing as interfering with play when the ball is on the right, but the actual written laws would show that this was an invalid interpretation.
Ias for your final paragraph - all laws have a precise, black and white definition. The definition is literally written down in black and white. What referees can do is interpret whether the current situation fulfills those definitions. Just because you struggle with this concept doesn't mean that everyone else does.
What am I wrong about?
Whether a challenge was reckless is subjective.
You think all rules should be black and white, yes and no. You make out that if they’re not, all hell will break loose.
And yet they are already.
So it’s you who is wrong. But you can’t see it because you have your head stuck in the legal application of laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with football.
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
What am I wrong about?
Whether a challenge was reckless is subjective.
You think all rules should be black and white, yes and no. You make out that if they’re not, all hell will break loose.
And yet they are already.
So it’s you who is wrong. But you can’t see it because you have your head stuck in the legal application of laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the application of the laws of football have absolutely nothing to do with football? Wrong again Winston.
You seem to be missing the key details. The only reason that the referee gets to make the subjective decision on whether a challenge is reckless (and even then they cannot just say a slight tug of shirt or minor coming together is reckless - subjectivity doesn't mean every interpretation is valid, which is another restriction you struggle with) is because "reckless" is written in black and white, in the rules.
Why do you think this is Winston? It is because if reckless was not explicitly written and defined in the rules then the referees would not be able to punish someone for being reckless. This is the entire point that you constantly miss. Referees can only apply interpretation to a law that is exactly written and defined.
If you remove parts of this then those parts get removed from the scope of the referee and he cannot interpret them. Hence why, if you remove the other part of the law and only keep that a player is offside if he is in the line of view of a defender then that is all the referee can interpret.
All this just because Greg was so upset that Liverpool scored a legit goal that he wants the rule changed without actually thinking through the consequences of it.
"So the application of the laws of football have absolutely nothing to do with football?"
This is a waste of time. You can't even read. The clue was in the word 'legal' - I was talking about your degree.
Just like you were arguing with Greg about the current law. It was pointed out to you several times that no one is arguing about the current law - they're suggesting it could be improved.
Jesus wept.
As I said this morning, it's all become clear now - why you just don't get it. And probably never will.
The worst thing about you is that you can't understand more than one perspective. I can understand your view, I just have a different one. You actually don't understand the alternative view. You'll claim you do, but you've proven here that you don't.
If we were to revert back to the word 'interfering' and give referees guidance as to what constitutes interfering, it would be far better than the current rule. Yet it would mean an element of subjectivity.
You can't wrap your head around that because you like things to be a tick box, yes or no.
Yet reckless is not a tick box, yes or no. Whether a challenge is reckless is a matter of opinion, not fact. There is guidance to help form an opinion, but it remains an opinion nevertheless and the game is better for it.
But as we've seen time and time again, it's this point that you just don't understand.
At least now I know why.
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 12 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Martial Law (U13506)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Liverpool are relentless when searching for a winner. Reminds me of Fergie vintage. They are also so selfless especially Mane, something you hope other teams will learn. The hammers had an opportunity earlier to go one up but Fornals did not pass the ball to his teammate who was in a better position.
Klopp has done a fantastic job building a culture where the attackers dont care who is putting the Ball in the net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really true
Salah is one of the greediest players in the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With a fantastic record of assists. 😂
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
"So the application of the laws of football have absolutely nothing to do with football?"
This is a waste of time. You can't even read. The clue was in the word 'legal' - I was talking about your degree.
Just like you were arguing with Greg about the current law. It was pointed out to you several times that no one is arguing about the current law - they're suggesting it could be improved.
Jesus wept.
As I said this morning, it's all become clear now - why you just don't get it. And probably never will.
The worst thing about you is that you can't understand more than one perspective. I can understand your view, I just have a different one. You actually don't understand the alternative view. You'll claim you do, but you've proven here that you don't.
If we were to revert back to the word 'interfering' and give referees guidance as to what constitutes interfering, it would be far better than the current rule. Yet it would mean an element of subjectivity.
You can't wrap your head around that because you like things to be a tick box, yes or no.
Yet reckless is not a tick box, yes or no. Whether a challenge is reckless is a matter of opinion, not fact. There is guidance to help form an opinion, but it remains an opinion nevertheless and the game is better for it.
But as we've seen time and time again, it's this point that you just don't understand.
At least now I know why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Legal" literally means relating to the law. In a conversation about football "legal" means relating to football's laws. Once again you show your inability to actually understand the definitions of words.
"It was pointed out to you several times that no one is arguing about the current law - they're suggesting it could be improved."
Yes and my last several posts have been to explain why the suggestions are half-baked, completely useless suggestions. How have you missed this? I have been talking about how if we do what Greg suggested it would lead to a ridiculous offside law. The issue is that you and Greg don't actually appear to be able to think through the suggestions made beyond this vague idea that you don't like the current law and it should be changed if it should be changed then you need to actually explain how you would change it and think of all the issues that this might cause. The only reason Greg is upset is because Liverpool benefitted from a decision, and because it was a correct decision he wants the law changed. He doesn't know, or care what it gets changed to, he just wants Mane's goal to have been wrong.
"If we were to revert back to the word 'interfering' and give referees guidance as to what constitutes interfering, it would be far better than the current rule. Yet it would mean an element of subjectivity"
We already have that. The guidance as to what constitutes interfering is literally written into the laws. The system you claim would be an improvement is the system that we currently have. This is absurd. It would be like changing the actual speed limits to something like "too fast" and then giving officers guidance that too fast is above 30.
"Yet reckless is not a tick box, yes or no. Whether a challenge is reckless is a matter of opinion, not fact."
It is still a tick box. Foul is committed - tick. Was foul, in your opinion, reckless? Of yes then card, if no then no card. It is literally a tick in the flow chart of sending a player off. Remove reference to reckless (to allow more subjective decisions as you would claim) in the laws and suddenly you cannot give a card for recklessness because it isnt against the laws. See how messy it gets when you remove definition?
The worst thing about you Winston, is that when your argument starts to unravel you resort to personal insults and little snide remarks like your almost patented "i feel sorry for you because you...". You then have the hypocrisy of occasionally claiming that people should be nicer to each other when debating.
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its absurd
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nice summing up of the childish reaction by Liverpool fans to this article
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nice summing up of the childish reaction by Liverpool fans to this article
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a nice summing up of the bitterness of United fans to Liverpool scoring a goal.
Offside rule
Page 3 of 4
posted on 31/10/20
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 17 minutes ago
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 2 minutes ago
I have a degree and a postgraduate diploma in legal practice. I have done courses on both legal drafting and legal writing. I have a very good understanding of the importance of ensuring that something is defined and enforceable so that it can actually be enforced.
---------
How many of those Houses of Parliament g0ons also have post graduate degrees?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Who cares? Or are you one of those brexity "had enough of experts" types?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Precisely my point, who cares.
I know many people with post-graduate degrees and their common sense is comparable to a turnip.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, and how is their knowledge in the specific area that they have a postgraduate in? Since that is the topic of discussion.
posted on 31/10/20
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
posted on 31/10/20
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 7 minutes ago
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yep, the ball is well passed mane before Jota gets to it!
posted on 31/10/20
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's laughable about it?
The ball was passed directly into Mane's path, who was offside?
It's only because he left the ball that it was not classed as offside.
This isn't a dig at Liverpool getting favoured, which is why Liverpool fans are all over this article, it's a dig at the crap rule that has been created. I see similar scenarios every other game.
I can't quite see how anyone can think that it isn't interfering with play?
Would you mind explaining how Liverpool's best player, who is stood behind West ham defenders, in the goalkeepers line of sight, in an offside position, had a ball played towards him (which he left), is not classed as interfering with play?
United benefitted from it a while back too and I had the same views.
The rule is rubbish. Plain and simple.
posted on 31/10/20
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 1 hour, 18 minutes ago
Come on I love winding Liverpool fans more than most but to say mane is interfering with play offside is laughable beyond even my wummery
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's laughable about it?
The ball was passed directly into Mane's path, who was offside?
It's only because he left the ball that it was not classed as offside.
This isn't a dig at Liverpool getting favoured, which is why Liverpool fans are all over this article, it's a dig at the crap rule that has been created. I see similar scenarios every other game.
I can't quite see how anyone can think that it isn't interfering with play?
Would you mind explaining how Liverpool's best player, who is stood behind West ham defenders, in the goalkeepers line of sight, in an offside position, had a ball played towards him (which he left), is not classed as interfering with play?
United benefitted from it a while back too and I had the same views.
The rule is rubbish. Plain and simple.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
posted on 31/10/20
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
posted on 1/11/20
comment by KLS (U1695)
posted 2 hours, 26 minutes ago
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Martial Law (U13506)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Liverpool are relentless when searching for a winner. Reminds me of Fergie vintage. They are also so selfless especially Mane, something you hope other teams will learn. The hammers had an opportunity earlier to go one up but Fornals did not pass the ball to his teammate who was in a better position.
Klopp has done a fantastic job building a culture where the attackers dont care who is putting the Ball in the net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really true
Salah is one of the greediest players in the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably why he’s been one of the highest scorers since coming to the league. He also has a very high assist ratio but let’s not let that get in the way of the greedy narrative!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple of things...your own fans complain about his selfishness and the point I was referring to was his comment that no one in the Liverpool teams attack is selfish which isn’t true
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 16 minutes ago
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is the correct reaction you should have towards yourself when you have familiarised yourself with the laws.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 16 minutes ago
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is the correct reaction you should have towards yourself when you have familiarised yourself with the laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the article is the law is incorrect, but I wouldn't expect an intellectual post-grad to get that.
As Winston said, its pointless discussing it with you.
posted on 1/11/20
A degree in legal practice. What’s that got to do with the offside law?
<law>
Suddenly it’s becoming clear why welshpool just doesn’t get it, though.
The fouls and misconduct law must be a real headfack for him.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 8 hours, 2 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Greg- (U1192)
posted 16 minutes ago
Try reading the laws. They explain what is considered to be interfering with play. You will note that Mane does not fill any of the criteria.
Then you might see why everyone else (correctly) sees why it isn't interfering with play.
---
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, that is the correct reaction you should have towards yourself when you have familiarised yourself with the laws.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of the article is the law is incorrect, but I wouldn't expect an intellectual post-grad to get that.
As Winston said, its pointless discussing it with you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The law isn't incorrect, you just don't like it because it was correctly applied and benefitted Liverpool.
Strange how you keep having to resort to personal insults because your argument is so weak it was dismissed ages ago.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
A degree in legal practice. What’s that got to do with the offside law?
<law>
Suddenly it’s becoming clear why welshpool just doesn’t get it, though.
The fouls and misconduct law must be a real headfack for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, all the fouls in the fouls and misconduct laws are pretty well defined and enforceable.
Your entire argument is that the offside law would be better placed if we removed some of the definition in it, so that line of view covered more things. Either this means line of view covers everything a player can see, or you have to add extra restrictions to make it work in practice. Simply saying "use common sense" will not work and is a laughable handwave.
Imagine getting rid of the defined speed limits so that the law was simply "don't drive too fast". People would ask how fast is "too fast" and be told "it is common sense". It would be a farce and be open to ridiculous abuse.
posted on 1/11/20
I didn’t say the law should be to use common sense.
I laughed because you’re incapable of using common sense to understand the difference between two scenarios.
Imagine if we defined a yellow card offence as ‘reckless’ and a referee had to make their own mind up as to whether a challenge was reckless.
Imagine.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 8 minutes ago
I didn’t say the law should be to use common sense.
I laughed because you’re incapable of using common sense to understand the difference between two scenarios.
Imagine if we defined a yellow card offence as ‘reckless’ and a referee had to make their own mind up as to whether a challenge was reckless.
Imagine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, and the definition of reckless is provided to help.
This is the opposite of what you suggested. You suggested that any offside player who is in a defenders line of view should be offside (the only way to make Mane offside in this specific incident). This would mean any offside player who was ina defenders line of view, regardless of position on pitch would be offside. You cannot apy.common sense because there is nothing to apply common sense too.
The only interpretations the ref could apply in such a case is:
Was he in an offside position? Yes/no
Was he in the line of view of a defending player? Yes/no.
You need to have written more to the law to make it usable or my situation of the goalie being able to see every player down the pitch would mean we essentially go back to the days of any offside is offside regardless of interfering with play.
To avoid this situation, a reasonable lawmaker would add criteria to the law. Something like being in the line of view which impacts on a defenders ability to play the ball would probably work... which is almost certainly how the current law was created.
So please do feel free to detail how you would define your alternative law that makes Mane offside, but isn't hugely broad, because it is pointless saying this law is bad and needs to be changed, you need to give a workable alternative.
posted on 1/11/20
“ You suggested that any offside player who is in a defenders line of view should be offside”
No I didn’t.
As usual, you’re making things up.
Referees have to use their own judgement to determine what is reckless, just as they can use their own judgement to determine what classifies as ‘interfering with play’.
Just because you struggle with laws that do not have precise, black and white definitions does not mean everyone else does.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 2 minutes ago
“ You suggested that any offside player who is in a defenders line of view should be offside”
No I didn’t.
As usual, you’re making things up.
Referees have to use their own judgement to determine what is reckless, just as they can use their own judgement to determine what classifies as ‘interfering with play’.
Just because you struggle with laws that do not have precise, black and white definitions does not mean everyone else does.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrong again Winston.
You really struggle with this concept of things having an actual definition and meaning. I understand these things, which is why I actually understand how written laws work.
Your go to argument is always that "referees can interpret" but since not all interpretations are valid, referees are limited in the interpretations they make.
Referees can only use their judgement to determine what reckless is based on the definition of the word reckless, which is why refs don't throw around red and yellow cards for every foul. They cannot and do not determine them as reckless.
Similarly there are very specific criteria to what constitutes "interfering with play". The refereed can interpret whether the existing situation meets one of that criteria, but only within the restrictions laid out by that criteria.
In theory a referee could try to claim that he "interpreted" the player on the left wing as interfering with play when the ball is on the right, but the actual written laws would show that this was an invalid interpretation.
Ias for your final paragraph - all laws have a precise, black and white definition. The definition is literally written down in black and white. What referees can do is interpret whether the current situation fulfills those definitions. Just because you struggle with this concept doesn't mean that everyone else does.
posted on 1/11/20
What am I wrong about?
Whether a challenge was reckless is subjective.
You think all rules should be black and white, yes and no. You make out that if they’re not, all hell will break loose.
And yet they are already.
So it’s you who is wrong. But you can’t see it because you have your head stuck in the legal application of laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with football.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
What am I wrong about?
Whether a challenge was reckless is subjective.
You think all rules should be black and white, yes and no. You make out that if they’re not, all hell will break loose.
And yet they are already.
So it’s you who is wrong. But you can’t see it because you have your head stuck in the legal application of laws, which have absolutely nothing to do with football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So the application of the laws of football have absolutely nothing to do with football? Wrong again Winston.
You seem to be missing the key details. The only reason that the referee gets to make the subjective decision on whether a challenge is reckless (and even then they cannot just say a slight tug of shirt or minor coming together is reckless - subjectivity doesn't mean every interpretation is valid, which is another restriction you struggle with) is because "reckless" is written in black and white, in the rules.
Why do you think this is Winston? It is because if reckless was not explicitly written and defined in the rules then the referees would not be able to punish someone for being reckless. This is the entire point that you constantly miss. Referees can only apply interpretation to a law that is exactly written and defined.
If you remove parts of this then those parts get removed from the scope of the referee and he cannot interpret them. Hence why, if you remove the other part of the law and only keep that a player is offside if he is in the line of view of a defender then that is all the referee can interpret.
All this just because Greg was so upset that Liverpool scored a legit goal that he wants the rule changed without actually thinking through the consequences of it.
posted on 1/11/20
"So the application of the laws of football have absolutely nothing to do with football?"
This is a waste of time. You can't even read. The clue was in the word 'legal' - I was talking about your degree.
Just like you were arguing with Greg about the current law. It was pointed out to you several times that no one is arguing about the current law - they're suggesting it could be improved.
Jesus wept.
As I said this morning, it's all become clear now - why you just don't get it. And probably never will.
The worst thing about you is that you can't understand more than one perspective. I can understand your view, I just have a different one. You actually don't understand the alternative view. You'll claim you do, but you've proven here that you don't.
If we were to revert back to the word 'interfering' and give referees guidance as to what constitutes interfering, it would be far better than the current rule. Yet it would mean an element of subjectivity.
You can't wrap your head around that because you like things to be a tick box, yes or no.
Yet reckless is not a tick box, yes or no. Whether a challenge is reckless is a matter of opinion, not fact. There is guidance to help form an opinion, but it remains an opinion nevertheless and the game is better for it.
But as we've seen time and time again, it's this point that you just don't understand.
At least now I know why.
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Jim Lahey (U22183)
posted 12 hours, 15 minutes ago
comment by Martial Law (U13506)
posted 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
Liverpool are relentless when searching for a winner. Reminds me of Fergie vintage. They are also so selfless especially Mane, something you hope other teams will learn. The hammers had an opportunity earlier to go one up but Fornals did not pass the ball to his teammate who was in a better position.
Klopp has done a fantastic job building a culture where the attackers dont care who is putting the Ball in the net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really true
Salah is one of the greediest players in the PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
With a fantastic record of assists. 😂
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 3 minutes ago
"So the application of the laws of football have absolutely nothing to do with football?"
This is a waste of time. You can't even read. The clue was in the word 'legal' - I was talking about your degree.
Just like you were arguing with Greg about the current law. It was pointed out to you several times that no one is arguing about the current law - they're suggesting it could be improved.
Jesus wept.
As I said this morning, it's all become clear now - why you just don't get it. And probably never will.
The worst thing about you is that you can't understand more than one perspective. I can understand your view, I just have a different one. You actually don't understand the alternative view. You'll claim you do, but you've proven here that you don't.
If we were to revert back to the word 'interfering' and give referees guidance as to what constitutes interfering, it would be far better than the current rule. Yet it would mean an element of subjectivity.
You can't wrap your head around that because you like things to be a tick box, yes or no.
Yet reckless is not a tick box, yes or no. Whether a challenge is reckless is a matter of opinion, not fact. There is guidance to help form an opinion, but it remains an opinion nevertheless and the game is better for it.
But as we've seen time and time again, it's this point that you just don't understand.
At least now I know why.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Legal" literally means relating to the law. In a conversation about football "legal" means relating to football's laws. Once again you show your inability to actually understand the definitions of words.
"It was pointed out to you several times that no one is arguing about the current law - they're suggesting it could be improved."
Yes and my last several posts have been to explain why the suggestions are half-baked, completely useless suggestions. How have you missed this? I have been talking about how if we do what Greg suggested it would lead to a ridiculous offside law. The issue is that you and Greg don't actually appear to be able to think through the suggestions made beyond this vague idea that you don't like the current law and it should be changed if it should be changed then you need to actually explain how you would change it and think of all the issues that this might cause. The only reason Greg is upset is because Liverpool benefitted from a decision, and because it was a correct decision he wants the law changed. He doesn't know, or care what it gets changed to, he just wants Mane's goal to have been wrong.
"If we were to revert back to the word 'interfering' and give referees guidance as to what constitutes interfering, it would be far better than the current rule. Yet it would mean an element of subjectivity"
We already have that. The guidance as to what constitutes interfering is literally written into the laws. The system you claim would be an improvement is the system that we currently have. This is absurd. It would be like changing the actual speed limits to something like "too fast" and then giving officers guidance that too fast is above 30.
"Yet reckless is not a tick box, yes or no. Whether a challenge is reckless is a matter of opinion, not fact."
It is still a tick box. Foul is committed - tick. Was foul, in your opinion, reckless? Of yes then card, if no then no card. It is literally a tick in the flow chart of sending a player off. Remove reference to reckless (to allow more subjective decisions as you would claim) in the laws and suddenly you cannot give a card for recklessness because it isnt against the laws. See how messy it gets when you remove definition?
The worst thing about you Winston, is that when your argument starts to unravel you resort to personal insults and little snide remarks like your almost patented "i feel sorry for you because you...". You then have the hypocrisy of occasionally claiming that people should be nicer to each other when debating.
posted on 1/11/20
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
posted on 1/11/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 3 minutes ago
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its absurd
posted on 1/11/20
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nice summing up of the childish reaction by Liverpool fans to this article
posted on 1/11/20
comment by Winston (U16525)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneRed's (U1721)
posted 8 minutes ago
Liverpool scored a goal, let's change the laws of the game
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A nice summing up of the childish reaction by Liverpool fans to this article
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Or a nice summing up of the bitterness of United fans to Liverpool scoring a goal.
Page 3 of 4