[Archived] Shirt Pulling

[Alan75]

Bring on the PFA rep, to act as arbitrator for every incident, I say.

[Al]

The offside law hasnt changed either, not in the last 10 years at least.

Of course it has. The instructions on interpretation change every season. Active or inactive, daylight or goalscoring body part. I don't know if the actual rule book has been changed but the interpretation certainly has. It used to be simple but now everybody has a different slant on it. That's why there are arguments and controversy every week on some decision or other

[RevidgeBlue]

Of course it has. The instructions on interpretation change every season. Active or inactive, daylight or goalscoring body part. I don't know if the actual rule book has been changed but the interpretation certainly has. It used to be simple but now everybody has a different slant on it. That's why there are arguments and controversy every week on some decision or other

It's very simple Al:

If it's Man Ure, or Liverpool it's on.

If it's Arsenal or Chelsea it's probably on.

If it's one of the other sixteen clubs it's definitely off.

[thenodrog]

The offside law hasnt changed either, not in the last 10 years at least.

It hadn't changed in a 100 years before that meddling.

[RevidgeBlue]

Going back to the Nelsen incident, if the referee adjudged it to be a foul, it was a clear sending off.

That said I know the shirt pulling photo above made the incident look bad but viewed at real speed the contact was minimal and not enough to warrant the Villa man chucking himself to the ground like a sack of spuds.

That's no excuse for Nelsen and I'd be in favour of introducing a zero tolerance approach to shirt pulling. We'd see a few games finish with ridiculous scorelines initially but then hopefully the penny would drop.

The problem is as we all know, in practice it would be implemented to the absolute letter for teams like us Wigan and Bolton and mysteriously overlooked for the "big four"

[den]

Going back to the Nelsen incident, if the referee adjudged it to be a foul, it was a clear sending off.

That said I know the shirt pulling photo above made the incident look bad but viewed at real speed the contact was minimal and not enough to warrant the Villa man chucking himself to the ground like a sack of spuds.

That's no excuse for Nelsen and I'd be in favour of introducing a zero tolerance approach to shirt pulling. We'd see a few games finish with ridiculous scorelines initially but then hopefully the penny would drop.

The problem is as we all know, in practice it would be implemented to the absolute letter for teams like us Wigan and Bolton and mysteriously overlooked for the "big four"

That's the problem in a nutshell Rev. I could accept the penalty decision happily, if I could guarantee the same would apply for us at places like OT.

Maybe it would, - as some people say "these things even themselves out".

[John Howarth]

There is a team in either League 1 or 2 who have adopted the rugby way where the captain only approaches the referee, it was featured on Soccer Sat last week

Barnet I beleive

[stuwilky]

Of course it has.

No, it hasn't Al. There has been some attempts at clarification of interfering with play and the definition - but the law is the same.

Most of the problems are caused by sodding commentators talking about rubbish like "daylight"

[DanLad]

No, it hasn't Al. There has been some attempts at clarification of interfering with play and the definition - but the law is the same.

Most of the problems are caused by sodding commentators talking about rubbish like "daylight"

Surely any 'clarification' that results in a different decision in an identical set of circumstances means that, in real terms, it has changed?

They may not have changed what's written but if they are changing how they are approaching that then surely that's what's being talked about here.

All semantics.

[Al]

Surely any 'clarification' that results in a different decision in an identical set of circumstances means that, in real terms, it has changed?

They may not have changed what's written but if they are changing how they are approaching that then surely that's what's being talked about here.

All semantics.

Precisely. I thought that was the gist of what I said.

[ABBEY]

actually, I was surprised you weren't miffed at the pen ABBEY, fairplay to ya.

The only possible reason for the red is a "last man" situation, which of course is dubious, but a potential reason, but irrelevant to the shirt pull

Why would i be miffed? its you who said about shirt pulling being ok..i was miffed at ref beause of the sending off thats all

[USABlue]

The offside rule hasn't changed in the 10+ years since I first became an assistant ref. It's pretty simple and I don't see why everyone complains about it hard to understand.

That's funny I could have sworn the Blatterside rule was implemented just a few years ago.

as for shirt pulling, here's my take on it. It is an offence but if you are going to call it call it each and EVERY time DO NOT call it against one team then ignore it for the Terry's and Carvhallo's of the world. Make it consistant or at least make an honest attempt to make it consistant.

[ABBEY]

That's funny I could have sworn the Blatterside rule was implemented just a few years ago.

as for shirt pulling, here's my take on it. It is an offence but if you are going to call it call it each and EVERY time DO NOT call it against one team then ignore it for the Terry's and Carvhallo's of the world. Make it consistant or at least make an honest attempt to make it consistant.

eggzacktly!!!!

[Rovers in America]

Maybe I'm being slow. According to your summation, when is a player onside?

If there's only three things to determine offsides does the position of the player not count as a fourth thing, and how about the direction that the ball is played, and whether it's a goal kick, or a throw in.

There's also that rule about big teams getting decisions written in invisible ink...

Finally, if all those things apply, why the hell was Djibril Cisse onside? You know the one I'm talking about...

Direction ball is played means nothing. But if the ball is played backwards to a player, then surely the player is farther from the attacking goal than the position of the ball, and thus the player is onside.

You can be offside on a goal kick, but not a throw in. Throw in is the only situation immune to offside laws. Corners are the only other, but that's because the ball is on the end line, or if not placed there, it's assumed as there.

[USABlue]

Finally, if all those things apply, why the hell was Djibril Cisse onside? You know the one I'm talking about...

For the truth in clarification see Revs post a few posts up. I think he has the rules nailed on the head there.

To save you looking here it is, in a nutshell

"It's very simple Al:

If it's Man Ure, or Liverpool it's on.

If it's Arsenal or Chelsea it's probably on.

If it's one of the other sixteen clubs it's definitely off."

[daren]

The interpretations including "daylight" and the like isn't a commentator thing, it was guidance given to linesmen to help them make sense of the rulings. And I'm pretty sure all this "active" and "inactive" and phases is new? Is that not written down?

However, if you're telling me that no rovers shirt was pulled in the area on Wednesday night then I couldn't agree. It happens at every corner, free kick and most of general play. It should only count as a foul if there's an advantage to the attacker that's removed by him being held back. Because the rule will never be implemented fairly it's the closest we could get to fair in my opinion.

[colin]

Just to get back to Abbey's original post.

Pulling a shirt can be construed as "holding" which is a yellow card. Stopping a goal scoring opportunity can be a red card. Looks like Nelsen copped for both.

The laws of the game are to be found at

The FA

So, just forget the rubbish spouted by far too many commentators & journalists who seem to enjoy repeating each other's misconceptions about "daylight," "studs up," "ball to arm," & similar "it's been repeated 50 times so it must be true" comments.

The link leads to the "Laws Of The Game" so the next time someone tells you about "The rules say that...." just tell them they know not a lot.

I just wish someone on MOTD had the sense to do it to a few of the experts.

[DanLad]

Direction ball is played means nothing. But if the ball is played backwards to a player, then surely the player is farther from the attacking goal than the position of the ball, and thus the player is onside.

Rubbish. The player can be stood nearer the goal than the ball when it's played and run back to get it. It wouldn't be offside as the ball was played backwards.

You can be offside on a goal kick, but not a throw in. Throw in is the only situation immune to offside laws. Corners are the only other, but that's because the ball is on the end line, or if not placed there, it's assumed as there.

I know the rules! My response was to an overly simplistic explanation of the offside rule that left a lot out. I was pointing out holes in the argument.

[Al]

Rubbish. The player can be stood nearer the goal than the ball when it's played and run back to get it. It wouldn't be offside as the ball was played backwards.

I know the rules! My response was to an overly simplistic explanation of the offside rule that left a lot out. I was pointing out holes in the argument.

Check your rule book. You cannot be offside direct from a goal kick.

[Fife Rover]

Check your rule book. You cannot be offside direct from a goal kick.

Just as amatter of interest Al, have you been a referee? I ask because you do seem to know the Laws of the game.

If you were a ref (I dont know how far back) but you may be able to remember the days (when I was a player) were you were not allowed to put a hand on another player at all. You could shoulder charge him off the ball but NEVER could you touch a player deliberately with your hand. If you did, it was a warning from the ref first time, and a booking if repeated. So shirt pulling just did not exist.

[DanLad]

Check your rule book. You cannot be offside direct from a goal kick.

Where did I say you could?

I said that if it's a goal kick is a factor in deciding offside decisions. Of course the decision arrived at is that the player isn't offside.

[Al]

Just as amatter of interest Al, have you been a referee? I ask because you do seem to know the Laws of the game.

If you were a ref (I dont know how far back) but you may be able to remember the days (when I was a player) were you were not allowed to put a hand on another player at all. You could shoulder charge him off the ball but NEVER could you touch a player deliberately with your hand. If you did, it was a warning from the ref first time, and a booking if repeated. So shirt pulling just did not exist.

Have a look at the Official Soccer Site law 11.

There is no offence if the player receives the ball directly from -

a goal kick or

a throw in or

a corner kick.

and no I have never been a referee but it certainly used to be a foul if a player 'handed off' an opponent like many players in posession do now and shirt pulling seems to be a fairly recent thing. But then charging the goalkeeper over the line if he had posession of the ball and both feet on the floor was acceptable and i wasn't sorry to see that stopped.

[Al]

Where did I say you could?

I said that if it's a goal kick is a factor in deciding offside decisions. Of course the decision arrived at is that the player isn't offside.

I was replying to ex ref. 'Rovers in America' Sorry if it came across a you Dan Lad. I thought the reply button would have included his post.

[DanLad]

I was replying to ex ref. 'Rovers in America' Sorry if it came across a you Dan Lad. I thought the reply button would have included his post.

That's fair enough. No worries, Al!