Search results

I'm not sure what remains wrong. The rule clearly defines what "influence on play" means - its not open to interpretation. Whether its a daft rule or not, at least its clear and unambiguous.

VAR would've been interesting. Given the amount of debate even after the incidents have been micro-analysed though, I wonder if it would have made any difference. I think both penalties would have been given, and Lawro would still disagree with the first as he hasn't read the rule-book.

Nope - you're wrong. here's the definition of having an influence on play: *** Apologies previous poster! did not see you had posted exactly the same thing! **** Kane did not do any of those things to become active. (he still dived though).

I can't believe the motd pundits, but for different reasons. The first penalty was NOT offside (the pundits reckoned it was). There's no debate about that, the rules of the game are completely clear that if the opponent plays the ball, the attacking player is not offside. The fact that Kane was...