Mellor incident

[Horsley Green]

Well done the ref for doing this correctly and ignoring the crowd!

 

[morleyboy]

Well done the ref for doing this correctly and ignoring the crowd!

I quite agree , and that was the point of the thread , to show that despite what us as fans sometimes think they are in fact right

 

[Stuart House]

This is fine, and as I expected whilst waiting for Mellor to come back on. The problem is at NO POINT did the ref come and check Mellors shirt!

 

[wightboy]

Morelyboy. Nothing wrong with getting clarification even though the safety issue that was the reason for the delay was seemingly never actually
checked.

 

[ealinggreen]

But the linesman did.Interesting the players do not know the laws,an Argyle player should have put the ball out.We had at least two opportunities to put the ball dead but chose to counter attack.Have to say at the time I thought put the bloody thing out of play.The ref was generally very good and obviously correct in this instance.

 

[esmer]

Hmm. Perhaps.

It does alter it though, because the ref got the first half of the rule correct, then not the second half, which deemed the first half completely pointless.

The ref did not enforce the rule in full, therefore, he was wrong.

The overall rule, even if applied correctly, seems a very silly one to me as well.

It is feasible that the referee could recognise from a distance that Mellor was wearing a new shirt. Someone has said on here that the replacement had no name or number on it's back so that would make it obvious that it had been changed. It is also feasible that the referee assumed, and I would say acceptably so that any new shirt that the club provided for the player was a clean one and therefore felt no need to inspect it up close.

He could see that when Mellor was standing on the line gesticulating to/at him .... so why not wave him on as you've just said his shirt had been 'checked'?? :think:

Because the Law says he can't return until the ball goes out of play after an equipment change. Had he only gone off for treatment he could have been waved back on. I thought we had established that.

Sorry, trying to see if any common sense or some intelligent thought by the ref could influence the autistic-style following of the rules.

this 'decision' had no common sense element and did not make sense ... I thought we had established that! :think:

What if the referee had bent the rules and allowed Mellor back on without the ball going out of play and he cleared a Cheltenham shot of the line and deprived them of a certain goal. They may have been a bit miffed.

 

[kenfurphysbigapple]

Sigh. I saw Paul Ince kick David Norris in the head. Right in front of the Lyndhurst and got away with it. A lot worse.

Ball didnt go out of play so ref is correct. Don't agree but its not his rules

 

[Pogleswoody]

Sigh. I saw Paul Ince kick David Norris in the head. Right in front of the Lyndhurst and got away with it. A lot worse.

Ball didnt go out of play so ref is correct. Don't agree but its not his rules

Should have given something especially as Chucks head was caught by one of the ballboys. :shock: