I think that David Will made a point of publicly backing Esse Baharmast in 1998, after the images from Norwegian TV were published. That said, it's certainly rare and does suggest good things ahead for Eriksson. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/soccer/world/events/1998/worldcup/news/1998/06/25/wcup_probref/ http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/1998/07/11/oth_233132.shtml http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Cleared..by+the+Internet.-a060675769
All the bluster from Man City aside, I think the referee on Wednesday was far better than the referee on Tuesday. I don't think his demeanor matches that of the Italian. No one was getting away with anything in the Bayern match while in Manchester it was slightly more out of control.
Article on the "triple punishment" Nothing really new that we have not discussed here. http://www.theguardian.com/football...ions-league-manchester-city-arsenal-penalties PH
no, that was not the question. The question is if it was really offside or not. Imho it was onside, because it were TWO different plays. But some people on the internet were saying Pique got advantage from his previous offside position and thus it was offside, although imho it´s a misinterpretation of the rules, because I suppose that as soon as the onside player got the ball, it constituted ANOTHER play when he passed to Pique. So I was asking a valid question, not dissing the referee class profession. In fact, I have a first degree cousin who is a professional linesman and although he is only 27, he is already working at 1st division matches of Rio Grande do Sul state league and 2nd division matches of the brazilian league. As for why it was a bad call, if those were two different plays, it´s quite clear: most of them were in quite a line. From ground level imho it´s just too difficult to judge exactly the direction the ball is going (no perspective). Add to that the fact there were players in front of him (and linesman are instructed to see the play from an exact perpendicular level to the last player of the opposing team) and it gets near impossible to judge in a microsecond if Fabregas was offside or not, of if the ball was going to Fabregas or Pique. The linesman should have waited to see who was going to pick the ball before raising the flag. But commentators imho are quite stupid. IF the linesman raises the flag too soon, and he makes a mistake, then he should have waited more. HOWEVER, if he waits more before raising the flag, and the team scores a goal which is then disallowed, commentators will usually say the linesman took TOO LONG to raise the flag. Because of how the offside rule works, I think despite what stupid commentators think, the linesman should ALWAYS wait at least one second before raising the flag, until he is certain who is getting the ball. It reduces the chances of mistake to only not having a good line of view if the player who indeed got the ball was offside or not, which is better than two possibilities of error (who got the ball and if whom got the ball was offside or not).
Not sure I'll grant that there is a valid question here -- no one who remotely understands Law 11 even pauses on that question. As should be made clear in the most basic offsisde discussio in any referee course, offside is reset on every touch by a member of the attacking team. "Gaining an advantage" has a very precise (some may say tortured) meaning that is defined in the I&G that could not possibly apply here. If a referee implores taking an advantage in this scenario, please steal his whistle.
Yes, you are quite correct. All of the qualified referees on this board know all of this, and have had it taught to them many times. But it is a slightly different matter to apply it when it occurs in a very high level match at speed. PH
Ah now I get the confusion. The reason people here didn't get what you where asking is that no one even considered the possibility of the AR deciding on offside due to anything Pique did. The AR didn't have a problem with his interpretation of the LotG, he just misjudged Fabregas position.