Wullie

Scenario: Blue defender handles the ball accidentally in his own penalty area, clearly not a penalty, arms by his side, whatever. He immediately boots the ball downfield to his striker, who scores. The original handball in his own box is now an offence because of the goal. Is it a) a penalty to Red, b) an indirect free kick in the Blue box to Red or c) nobody knows because IFAB haven't thought their daft rule change through?

Every thread.

I hear he was behind the grassy knoll when PJ got blinded.

On the contrary, it makes me smile how much Allardyce loathes Benitez. One of the things I like most about Rafa tbh.

I have absolutely no doubt what the law is meant to be doing, and the referees and the press are all going off how the law should have been written for what it is intended, not what it actually is. Ignore the BBC, Michael Oliver, whoever - read the words that have been written down. There's a typo in there for good measure ("touches", should be touched). It's appallingly written, which is ironic seeing as the whole thing has been done solely for the benefit of people obsessed with accuracy and the LETTER OF THE LAW.

We're reading the laws themselves, why are you quoting a BBC article at me? "By the letter of the law" which is what we're talking about, that goal was entirely legal. Laporte did not gain control or possession and BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW he (personally) has to do that, before scoring or creating, for it to be an offence. He did not, therefore it wasn't.

He has to gain control or possession of the ball first, before that part of the sentence applies.

• a player gains control/possession of the ball after it has touches their hand/arm and then scores, or creates a goal-scoring opportunity How does that in any way describe what happened on Saturday? Laporte did not gain control or possession of the ball at any point. The only way you can get that paragraph to disallow the goal on Saturday is to add extra meaning to the words that aren't there, "oh yeah they meant if it goes to a teammate obvs". If they meant that, they should have written it.

It wasn't the correct decision anyway tbh, I don't know what I'm on about there. Even reading the new law, it simply was not.

It was only the "correct decision" because the laws have been changed this summer for the purposes of accommodating VAR.

Newcastle-Online alumni.

I know him.

Balotelli to Brescia looks official, love that move.

The rule change is fucking ridiculous. How can you have a rule where an infringement is only an infringement based on what happens afterwards? In one box, it's handball, in the other it's not, the exact same scenario. The game is losing the plot.

Looks like he's washed his face with a tin of red paint on Soccer Saturday.

Just seen the score.

Griezmann just doesn't fit I don't think.

Mad how shambolic La Liga's marketing and rights negotiation is compared to the Premier League.

They lost the play off final having been 2-0 up after the first leg.

Huh, had absolutely no idea he'd gone to Russia.

Fucking love today's, the VAR wars frames are amazing.

Grow up. Edit: Fitzgerald

Wonder if we would be able to get him to clarify that. Maybe ask Caulking to get in touch. Be surprised if Caulkin didn't ghost wrote the article.

Think he's just a contributor. The rest all sit on the board of NUST; they all want to be further involved with NUFC and get coin doing so. This was also my issue with the supporters trust being the same people as the fanzine. The fanzine slowly loses it's objectivity as they want to be involved with the club albeit I didn't think it would happen so soon. Same happened down the road when Roker Report became a club mouthpiece for the Don because he bought them a Maccy D's. The worst of it all is that the NUST survey was overwhelmingly in support of a boycott, yet several of them (including the Chair of the trust, no less) decided to publicly flaunt the fact that they were attending. Massively disappointing. Played the boycott card when it suited them just to get money in. Fucking arseholes.