Search results

If it's true that Webb said that then I disagree both in law and in common sense. I simply don't understand football any more - I'll also remind people that the panel adjudged Gibbs-White nasty challenge on Pedro didn't warrant a yellow card. Madness.

Yep and the obvious point was made that the ref and lino had already deemed he was interfering with play and was offside - there was no need for VAR to get involved other than a rubber stamp "agree with onfield call". Complete waste of everyone's time.

Indeed. It's a correct decision both in law and in a common sense view of offside. Pundits generally haven't got a clue what they are talking about.

This. It's REALLY straightforward.

To be honest the City goal was very different and at the time the ball was played he was not interfering with play so that was the correct decision. As was this.

I agree they score. It's imaterial. He challenges for the ball, he's offside.

I simply don't understand how Armstrong wasn't impacting on the play. He was active and therefore offside. Obvious at the ground, obvious on the first replay - it should have taken them 10 seconds.