Bimpy474

I don't understand Gouffran's role in the team, he offers nothing go forward. A utter waste of a shirt. Hahaha Gouffran gives away a dumb free kick and 1-0.

Much better.

We haven't scored direct from a free kick for a while now.

And little fucking hobbit at RB can feck off as well.

Dummett is awful, utterly awful.

Mbemba.

Fucking hell

Jesus we are so fucking boring, i suppose the end will justify the means.

Nope Leeds ungood Friday.

Fuck off Colback.

We can't pass the fucking thing ten yards to each other, absolutely abysmal.

Generous, it was fucking turd.

Ritchie gets in in ten yards of space, hold on to it and turn ffs.

Diame didn't leave his foot in, he clearly slipped you fucking nugget.

What a superb dive.

They want to stop bad tackles, yet give a yellow for six studs up late tackle.

Gameweek 32 Tottenham 3-0 Watford Man City 3-0 Hull Middlesbrough 1-1 Burnley Stoke 1-2 Liverpool West Brom 1-1 Southampton West Ham 1-1 Swansea Bournemouth 0-2 Chelsea Sunderland 0-2 Man Utd Everton 2-1 Leicester Crystal Palace 1-2 Arsenal Sheff Wed 0-0 Newcastle

What a shit dive by Murray

What a save ffs.

Everything you want in a player, good quality, hard work, passion, will to win, goals, assists. Love him.

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment. If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake. The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be. I know what you mean to be fair but personally i actually agree with this rule, or players will bomb in the box all the time before the ball is struck. Which wouldn't matter unless the ball rebounds. Suppose it might put the keeper or taker off though. I can understand that bit as well, it seems ok in practice but just wouldn't look or seem right imo. I think it's one of the more sensible rules actually, and funnily enough one of the few they can't feck around with. Hopefully.

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment. If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake. The rules are understood. What I mean is Gayle's encroachment had no impact on the penalty. Had the penalty been saved and Gayle scored the rebound, that in my opinion is when the rule should be applied. I'm not doubting what the rule is, I'm stating what I think it should be. I know what you mean to be fair but personally i actually agree with this rule, or players will bomb in the box all the time before the ball is struck.

Encroaching should only come into play if there's a rebound. Why does it even matter if a defender is in the box if the player scores or puts it wide? It doesn't. Doesn't it? So defenders are allowed to do it??? Effectively yeah. If the goal is scored, the defenders' actions are rendered meaningless by the rule above. Think I've just misinterpreted your point tbh. Spot on Dave, the defenders action are indeed rendered meaningless if the goal is scored.

That's not what he meant though, if I'm reading things correctly. Shearergol is saying that if the pen is put wide or in the back of the net, it doesn't matter if there is an encroachment. If we scored as we did, Gayles encroachment should have meant a retake. If Ritchie had missed but a Burton player had encroached then it should have been retaken, if Ritchie had scored when a Burton player had encroached it should have stood. Players from both teams encroaching means a retake.

This is actually one of the worst decisions ever made, not decisions about a what's foul, offside or whether a foul was in or outside the box. I mean in regard to basic refereeing and understanding the actual rules. This was a basic rule that a ref should know, and it's never ever ever been a free kick for encroachment. For a ref to get it so wrong, well he should be sacked from professional refereeing, it's an absolute disgrace and utterly ridculous that he could even think he was in the right. And what makes it worse is he consulted the linesman and 4th official and none of them could get it right, all of them should be removed from professional football.