They have been given guidance as to how they should interpret it

Which appears to change the law.

If that’s how they want to apply it then change the law to reflect it.

If your interpretation is correct, you don’t need the words “preventing an opponent…” in the law at all. It should just say “clearly obstructing the opponents line of vision” if that is to be the offence.

Posted By: Jim on April 7th 2024 at 08:39:45

Message Thread

That Wolves goal (NCFC) - Jim, Apr 7, 07:29:38
- Such a weird take by all the pundits (n/m) (NCFC) - jAC, Apr 7, 08:30:24
- I barely ever watch VAR replays now. I just look away and wait for the decision (NCFC) - Lentil Weaver, Apr 7, 07:56:34
- Irrelevant that he wouldn’t have saved it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Apr 7, 07:42:38
  - It is one of the clearest offsides I have ever seen (NCFC) - earlydoors, Apr 7, 08:10:53
    - It’s baffling that there has been any controversy around it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Apr 7, 08:20:54
  - It’s not as the rule states that the interfere cr (n/m) (NCFC) - Jim, Apr 7, 07:47:38
    - Sorry it’s not irrelevant as…. (NCFC) - Jim, Apr 7, 07:49:18
      - Which he does! (NCFC) - SCC 28, Apr 7, 08:05:07
        
        The relevant bit of the law is ignored (NCFC) - Jim, Apr 7, 08:10:53
        
        No you are misinterpreting it (NCFC) - SCC 28, Apr 7, 08:17:02
        
        They have been given guidance as to how they should interpret it (NCFC) - Jim, Apr 7, 08:39:45
        
        It applies to more than just vision (NCFC) - SimonOTBC, Apr 7, 09:23:47

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.