Search results

Nothing to do with arcs IMHO the ball should be touching the line at some point for a corner, nothing else, and the rule should be adjusted accordingly, just my opinion. This would bring clarity and easy enforcement.

We seem to be at cross purposes here as the rule isnt the whole of the ball over the whole of the line for corners. I agree it should be for throw in goals etc but my point is some of the ball should be touching or inside of the line for corners.

No just for corners, change it to Part of the ball must be either in the quadrant or touching the line rather than hanging over the line which is always debatable, touching is a definitive it is or not

I accept that but feel that as in your screen shot the 'red spot' should be touching the line and the rule adjusted accordingly to insist on that.

You are correct and I must have misread it as I am sure that I read 1.93 meters, somewhere but will accept that I could be wrong.

Before you leave perhaps you can answer the question why does VAR concentrate on 1 aspect of the laws but not others? It must be said that the better team correctly won.

I checked him on wiki and it showed 1.93meters = 6ft 4.5in so I will not argue about 1 inch as he still missed the header for the 2nd due to VVD movement. As I have said more practice needed at Lancing to sort these problems out.

The position of the ball is very important as it affects the angle of delivery but that isnt the point. The whole point of VAR is to ensure that all goals scored conform 100% to the requirements of the law hence goals are disallowed when a players finger nails are offside which is totally...

I dont think that in this instance it was and also I have just watched MOTD from last night and it seems that is the case for most corners very few seem to adhere to that ruling.

As I said I do not know the actual rule so perhaps you can enlighten me.

I am not sure of the actual rule but thought that some part of the ball had to be in or touching the lines of the quadrant, which it wasnt so when checking VAR should have picked it up IMHO and the goal disallowed for an infringement.

Can somebody explain why VAR didnt pick up the fact that the corner for the 2nd goal was not in or touching the quadrant, or didnt appear to be, so should have been retaken. I thought this on the stream and looked out for it on MOTD and showed to be correct.

Wouldnt have solved our problems either being injured or loss of form. We have made a great improvement by signing Mooy on loan.

I have been saying for ages that for man who is 6ft 5in Dunk does not win enough balls in the air but I think the one today was more about VVD movement to pull away from Dunk. We seriously need to get some practice in at Lancing with crosses into the box.

As you mention it I will point out that Kayal has started 2 times for Charlton and 4 sub appearances in The Championship so hardly a player that we need in The Premier so perhaps my view has been vindicated. As regards Webster I really hope that he reaches the same status as Dunk and becomes...

People complaining about a possible foul for their 2nd goal should realise that certain refs will always favour the top 6 sides and make it obvious, unfortunately we have had 2 in our last 2 games. Atkinson and Dean.

Only having 1 Premier standard defender in today's back 4 didn't help, although Montoya can raise his game. occasionally.

A much better 2nd half, which is where GP is better than CH as he can see the problems and sort them out at half time ,but we were let down by 2 instances of poor defending and unfortunately it has to be said yet another one by Webster.

Just seen the 2nd goal and again Dunk is outjumped Do we do any training at Lancing on tactics and defending set pieces.

The stream lagged for the 2nd goal so will have to watch it at half time but on the first bad tactics from GP because VVD is 6ft 4in, Burn 6ft 6in Dunk 6ft 5in and Webster 6ft 2in why was Webster marking VVD ridiculous.