No one went!

[Mooro]

That was my view, the trailing leg seems to give JC a quite a swipe, which I think is where the problem lies.
Two potential offside shouts for the 3rd goal, neither of which are entirely clear, tho the first looks the more tenuous (unless there is someone out of shot playing him on).

Didn't spot anything - re trailing leg. If he did have a crafty swipe them fair play to the ref. Think we still have this on HDD - I'll take another look if the family have not wiped it.

As for the offside no idea that there was more than one shout. Craddock - and freeze framing proved the lino 100% correct.
If the Burton defenders (even if they were depleted in numbers) had bothered to play to the whistle instead of standing still with arms aloft the was a very high chance they could have prevented the goal. Perhaps that golden rule was not in the dossier Westley handed over to Karen's husband.

Looked at it yet again.
Trailing leg did absolutely nothing wrong - it has to be somewhere after all. It didn't swipe at anything.

Offside - can't see any hint of a second shout. If it was that MacLean was offside there is no chance whatsoever as he was always behind the ball.

Obviously still discussing this as there has been no midweek game to debate. Only two days to Gigg Lane so I'll move on now.

Agree that Parks got the ball OK with his right, but then as the left leg comes through it basically takes JCs legs from under him, which as I understand it is the basis for the ban on tackling from behind, whether deliberate, malicious or just a by-product of a perfectly executed tackle.

Offside - not Maclean, but the ball to the player on the edge of the box who then wonderfully miscontrols the ball through his own legs to set up himself up to make the pass into the box. Not sure where the RB is, but on what I can see onscreen he could be said to be just ahead of the plaeyr in the orange boots, but it may be that Batt has dragged his marker far enough to play him on.

[Dartford Ox]

The tackle on Beano was from behind. Is that not an offence in itself, regardless of whether the ball is played or not?

[Baboo]

The tackle on Beano was from behind. Is that not an offence in itself, regardless of whether the ball is played or not?

If i had not vowed to refrain from posting anything else on this thread I would have said - from behind are you sure we are talking about the same tackle. I thought the guy came in from 2 o'clockish on Beano. (Early not late I suppose as we didn't ko until 3)

[Hog]

Only on this forum could we have hand-wringing because a decision may have given us an advantage!

[OUFC_Gav]

The rules this season use the phrase &quotexcessive force&quot. It can clearly be argued that the way he dived in when the ball was in that position shows excessive force.

[Baboo]

The rules this season use the phrase &quotexcessive force&quot. It can clearly be argued that the way he dived in when the ball was in that position shows excessive force.

How very very subjective. Easy get out clause to justify poor refereeing decisions.

[Dr Bob]

The rules this season use the phrase &quotexcessive force&quot. It can clearly be argued that the way he dived in when the ball was in that position shows excessive force.

How very very subjective. Easy get out clause to justify poor refereeing decisions.

Ball to hand or hand to ball? The current offside rule? Subjectivity is part of refereeing the rules of the game. It is what makes the claim of 'poor refereeing decisions' itself a subjective statement.

[Baboo]

Ball to hand or hand to ball? The current offside rule? Subjectivity is part of refereeing the rules of the game. It is what makes the claim of 'poor refereeing decisions' itself a subjective statement.

True, but does commonsense come into it anywhere at all?

[A-Ro]

Ball to hand or hand to ball? The current offside rule? Subjectivity is part of refereeing the rules of the game. It is what makes the claim of 'poor refereeing decisions' itself a subjective statement.

True, but does commonsense come into it anywhere at all?

Of course it does. I consider myself as having plenty of commonsense and I thought it was a rash tackle.

[Baboo]

Ball to hand or hand to ball? The current offside rule? Subjectivity is part of refereeing the rules of the game. It is what makes the claim of 'poor refereeing decisions' itself a subjective statement.

True, but does commonsense come into it anywhere at all?

Of course it does. I consider myself as having plenty of commonsense and I thought it was a rash tackle.

I meant with regards to refereeing performances &amp those that are responsible for the laws of the game &amp the guidelines that go with them. Didn't spell it out though.

I also consider that I have plenty of commonsense and I thought the punishment was very harsh, and I watched it over and over again after people came up with reasons why it was rash / nasty / from behind or whatever. But there you go. I've deleted it now.

[Hog]

I also consider that I have plenty of commonsense and I thought the punishment was very harsh, and I watched it over and over again after people came up with reasons why it was rash / nasty / from behind or whatever. But there you go. I've deleted it now.

How many times did the ref get to see it before he made his decision?

[Dr Bob]

True, but does commonsense come into it anywhere at all?

Of course it does. I consider myself as having plenty of commonsense and I thought it was a rash tackle.

I meant with regards to refereeing performances &amp those that are responsible for the laws of the game &amp the guidelines that go with them. Didn't spell it out though.

I also consider that I have plenty of commonsense and I thought the punishment was very harsh, and I watched it over and over again after people came up with reasons why it was rash / nasty / from behind or whatever. But there you go. I've deleted it now.

Careful - you have come very close to putting &quotcommonsense&quot and &quotFIFA&quot in the same sentence...

[Baboo]

I also consider that I have plenty of commonsense and I thought the punishment was very harsh, and I watched it over and over again after people came up with reasons why it was rash / nasty / from behind or whatever. But there you go. I've deleted it now.

How many times did the ref get to see it before he made his decision?

We all know it is one.
I didn't think there was much if anything wrong with it at the time when I had seen it once. (Obviously I was looking at it from a different angle than the ref.
I could go on about TV replays helping the officials out but in this case a few of us have seen it a few times and still we don't agree. So that's shot that arguement in the foot, or depending what view you have just past the foot or something.

[Baboo]

[
Careful - you have come very close to putting &quotcommonsense&quot and &quotFIFA&quot in the same sentence...

Yes, sorry. Silly me, perhaps I do indeed lack commonsense.

[Mooro]

I make no claim abou common sense - perhaps I was just comparing it with Kevin Francis all those years ago.

ANyway, agree re: video evidence - certainly no place for it while the game is being played, with teh exception of the goal-line and that ought to be possible using some sort of Hawkeye system that does not require human intervention.

The only place I would have for video evidence is for the referee to be given the opportunity to review the whole game on video, then make any changes to the carding he employed (add or retract) before the FA or PL or whoever get involved. This would add to their credibility, but also give them chance to deal more effectively with situations where hewas crowded by players, enabling him to card each player he felt overstepped the line -