MOTD and Newcastle penalty

[Grassy Noel]

One of the reasons why I rarely attend matches these days was exemplified by the pundits discussing the award of a dubious penalty. At what stage in football's history did rules become supplanted by 'guidelines'?

[Yorkie_FFC]

The laws of the game are very factual based however what context did they use "guidelines"?

[Grassy Noel]

The laws of the game are very factual based however what context did they use "guidelines"?

Yorkie, I would ask you, no I would implore you, to watch it on iplayer and then tell us what you think. I cannot explain it here because:
a) it would be far too complicated to attempt to explain and
b) Gary, Danny and Shane gave no explanation of what the guideline actually is except to say that the guideline (whatever it was) allowed for a penalty to be given though they disagreed with that decision! At no time did they read out any guideline on the matter. They were a complete disservice to football.
I now understand why this exciting 2-2 draw was the last game on MOTD (rather than Fulham!). It was because they were embarrassed and ill-prepared.

[Arthur]

There are illustrations to help referees with the offside law in a section 'Practical Guidelines for Match Officials' within the Laws of the Game. I'm not aware, however, the incident that resulted in the award of a penalty to Newcastle is one of these illustrations.

Instead, the offside law itself contains a paragraph that explains why a penalty was awarded:

'...a player in an offside position is moving towards the ball with the intention of playing the ball and is fouled before playing or attempting to play the ball, or challenging an opponent for the ball, the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence.' (My use of bold font.)

I don't see what would be difficult for the pundits to understand about this in the context of Saturday's decision. The Bournemouth defender was impeding the Newcastle player by holding his shirt from the time the free-kick was taken.

[RaySmith]

I think it means that the pundits  approved of the fact that a foul took precedence since it happened before the off-side, and therefore a pen should be awarded, but they didn't actually think it was a foul.

[bobbo]

I think I can iron this out for you . Ray has pretty much got it in a nutshell

Some time ba even before all this delaying of raising the flag for offside , offside is not given til the actual off player touches the ball hence the shirt pulling which is a penal offence was not only done first but the ball was nowhere near being touch when the shirt pull happened . Plus back I the late 60s and early seventies when I was teaching would be referees for the exam because the shirt pull is a penal offence ( requiring a direct free kick ) offside is or was deemed a technical offence awardable by an indirect free kick.

Just as an addition the pundits views mean little it is the laws of the game that prevails not their opinions however one or two of them have been on referee courses .