Search results

Not at all. If I aim a punch at someone, miss and he goes down its VC and also simulation.

...and relocated to the National Aquatic Centre's 10 metre diving board;)

That's not how it works. Did I just have a sandwich? You may not know so are making a decision based on the crumbs in my lap but there is still a correct answer. It's objective.

Sounds like something Klopp would say.

What’s deeply frustrating is that Chapman had a really good 120 minutes with four KMIs spot on on the field. And then this - was sickening to watch the chaos!

I think it does: A throw-in is awarded to the opponents of the player who last touched the ball when the whole of the ball passes over the touchline, on the ground or in the air.

Due to COVID I've yet to referee a game this year but if it is a case I suspect it's referees being less willing to apply the law to the letter - match control is key on a Sunday morning, PL referees have to be stricter* *with some laws ;)

Don't paint it like we're sitting there outside of IFAB meetings chanting 'ruin the game!'

THANK YOU!

Ah so now you want to ignore the handball law totally.

What about that one? ;)

I have. What should I be looking for?

But now you're attempting to second guess the law. It doesn't talk about intent at all because referees hated that subjectivity.

Yes because they're also making the body bigger?

That's talking about a change in the law and doesn't once say that the new interpretation would have saved Dier, it would (as your article says) save Lindelof.

As the VAR can do, it shows the position of the arm and/or the point of contact - that is unnaturally bigger.

They weren't and have been very clear that their 'new' interpretation wouldn't have changed the Dier call because the law doesn't remotely allow that. The arm made the body unnaturally bigger - the end. Jamie Carragher getting cross doesn't allow PGMOL to write a whole new law.

But the law doesn't mention 'unnatural movement'.

Oh come on - look at the Dier HB vs Newcastle. Annoying call but correct in law - no intent at all.