4 points lost v Liverpool and Spurs...

[Sting of the North]

Arthur, for someone so seemingly sensitive you sure come across as more than a little condescending. Hopefully that is not your intent. Nor is it my intent to be rude, but I admit I am a bit annoyed at several of your comments, so forgive me if anything sounds offensive. I will now leave this discussion with a few short comments. No hard feelings meant, I just find this exchange becoming increasingly unenjoyable because of the almost complete lack of progress (in my opinion). Feel free to have the last word, because I am trying to avoid being annoyed by such insignificant things as forum discussions.

- never have I defined a dribble as being limited to  'take the ball around a player' and as such whether or not Maja did that was never the point. I did not define what constituted a dribble, I described what Maja did (perhaps in poor wording, but that shouldn't matter in this case). It should be perfectly clear to anyone watching the goal what Maja did, and as such that was the action I was referring to whatever you prefer to call it.

- Native speaker or not, you expand the meaning of the expression 'anyone's guess' far too wide, because there is nothing inherent in the expression stating that all guesses are always equally good. It just means that nobody can be completely certain of something (within the given context, in this case the lack of a clear definition). Thus anyone is free to take their guess. I am not saying 'your guess is as good as mine' (which also is not normally used in the absolute sense that all guesses no matter how out there are equal, but rather an acknowledgement of you believing that you do not know better than the other person on the subject at hand) that you are incorrectly stating that I wrote. They are two different expressions.

- furthermore, in both of your examples I believe that 100% of the referees would not even consider whether or not it is a dribble, but instead focus on whether or not the goal was scored immediately following the handball. As I explained seemingly to no avail in my last post, I am fairly certain that it is not important nor interesting to determine if Maja dribbled. Did something occur between the handball and the goal? Yes (hence the objective first criteria for the referee to be able to allow the goal was fulfilled). Was it subjectively sufficient enough to deem the goal not being immediate? According to the referee no. There is no need, and never was a need, to try to define either a pass or a dribble or distance since you always only need to subjectively determine 'immediate'. The other things are just examples of factors that comes into play.

- Lastly, you did indeed misinterpret my conclusion. I haven't shifted my view. I still believe there is wiggle room for the referee, and I believe the referee should have used that wiggle room to decide in accordance to the stated purpose of the rule. I just acknowledged that based on what the referees may be told, the wording of the clarifying comments and based on similar cases it can be understandable and even on the face of it seem reasonable that the referee decided as he did. It was still wrong in my opinion, but I do not believe it is a conspiracy.

I hope some of the above was understandable, but if not I assume it is because my poor understanding of the English language.

Have a good night