...would currently be a seller outside Goodison Park I reckon. The man is having a stinker. Currently half time, Everton should be a couple of goals up at least, but instead it's Spurs who have the advantage due an offside (during the build-up) goal that was allowed and a perfectly good one at the other end that wasn't. Oh yeah, and Taricco apparently hospitalizing Graveson didn't even warrant a caution.

Not that I'm a closet Evertonian nor nothing, it's just when Refs are so blatantly inept it spoils the sport as a whole.

Mind, the trouble with making the voodoo doll is that - if memory of old Hammer films serves me right - you need a lock of the victim's hair to activate it.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Answers

Surely he's prick enough by himself.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Now Spurs fan will be in for a few dolls.

Tottenham down to nine men

.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Come on Everton! For no reason other than all those media slags who have chosen Spurs to be the best of the rest based solely on the fact that every phone-in is riddled with them like a particularly virulent and unwelcome dose of crabs. Big Dunc has scored another pen so that should have them whinging for another week. Perhaps they did something evil in a former life.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Elleray - one of our better Refs imo - had a nightmare tonight.

God help us, if this is what we can expect from full-time Refs (and yes, I do know Elleray is the exception and has rtained his job at Harrow, or is it Eton).

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

I couldn't see anything wrong with the challenge Dohery made on Campbell. As for the offside in the build-up to the goal - well, not sure. Give the attackers the benefit I say. However, as for Tarico abomination - will the FA do FA about it? Will they f***.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

The thing about the Tarrico "tackle" - assault, actually - was that Elleray was only 10 yds away and looking directly at it.
What the hell did he see? Tarrico's foot was 15-18inches off the ground, and connected with Gravesons leg just below his knee, when the ball was on the ground!

I thought for once Andy Gray summed it up perfectly when he said the Referees seem to be focused on looking to book players for shirt tugging and kicking the ball away rather than on stamping out the really career-threatening challenges.

You could argue the Spurs goal could have been disallowed for offside, but it was highly marginal and the Linesman's miss rather than Elleray's. However, he ruled out a perfectly good Everton goal for nothing, sent Docherty off for nothing at all, and Poyet for a comedy foul that certainly deserved a booking - but to be sent off for that when Tarrico wasn't even spoken too for his GBH, summed up Mr. Elleray's performance perfectly. Not one to be proud of.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Yeah, Elleray had a bloody awful game.

Tarricco should have been off, no question about it. The worst thing was that he was watching the incident full on yet failed to even give a free kick (I think)

Looking at the replays, Spurs' goal was definitely offside, but that's the linesman's job to spot that. Why don't they change the rule to the old offside rule, if you are offside, you are offside, regardless of whether you are interfering with play or not?

Everton's disallowed goal should definitely have stood, so all in all, it should have been 1-0 to Everton at half time.

I have really build up hatred towards Spurs recently, probably because of the completely underserved praise they are getting. It isn't jealousy, no way at all is it jealousy, but the way the media love Glenn Hoddle, as if they are apologetic to him after getting him booted out of the England manager's job.

I hope Spurs go down. (PLEASE!)

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

Paul - that's the way offside used to be when Jonno was a lad. It was changed to give the attackers the benefit and to allow the game to flow more (a good sentiment in IMHO). But it just doesn't work. With today's technology, most decisions will be analysed to death. One solution (which I am not advocating) would be to scrap the offside rule completely. However, I could accept changes that allow technolgy to be used to decide. Yes, I realise that it could vreate more "stop/start" activity, but for a major incident like a "goal" it could easily be analysed while the ball was dead (awaiting KO or a free-kick).

I'd also like to see actions like Tarico's punished during the game. It is possible that on the evidence of a video replay, that he will be charged with dangerous play. But what advantage does that give to Everton? None. Surely even a blind 4th orificial could have seen that and notified Elleray within seconds/minutes. At the next "natural break", he should have been sent off. Nowt wrong with that approach IMHO. That way, Everton would have been compensated earlier in the game.

PS. I still don't know what you would do to stop a stupid decicion like the Doherty incident.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

the way offside used to be when Jonno was a lad

There was no offside when I was a lad. I can remember when this BBS was aall fields.

-- Anonymous, August 20, 2001

IMHO the offside rule should be abolished outside the 18 yd box , if you leave a man on his own in an attacking area outside the 18 yd box , then your defenders arent doing their jobs.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

Newcastle would be the only team to suffer there....

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

There was a good discussion during the last Test when the TV umpire was asked to adjudicate on whether a catch had carried to a slip fielder. The TV umpire is allowed to take his time and make the right decision about whether the catch carried. This is fine. The thing was that when the bowler bowled (Warne I think) it was clearly a no-ball and everyone with access to the telly pictures could see so. Amazingly the TV umpire is only allowed to say whether the catch carried or not. It did so he gave the guy out. He could see it was a no-ball but he wasn't allowed to say so.

When (cos it will happen) we have TV refs helping their blind colleagues on the pitch it will be very difficult to draw up rules. The 'interfering with play' rule on the offside is the hardest. The worst scenario is the player in an offside position but not interfering in anyway at all when his colleague shoots from 35 yards out. He clearly isn't interfering and if the ball goes in the net the goal should stand. (Billy Bremner Paris 1975) The problem is if the ball comes back off the post/goalie and goes to the 'off-side' player who sticks it in the net. He is then interfering, maybe.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

The rebound would be classed as second phase. Therefore he's not offside and the goal counts.

I think

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001

Screacher,

The penalty incident with Docherty was one of those that I don't really think you can legislate for. Watching it live I thought it was probably a penalty, and I don't think we can expect Referees to do anything other than call those incidents as they see them.

On the Tarrico "tackle", Elleray was only 10yds away and in the perfect position to see and judge the incident - much better than the Linesman. I still can't understand what he believed he saw. I can only assume he didn't see the actual connection - perhaps he momentarily took his eye off the point of contact - otherwise Tarrico would surely have walked. However, for both Officials to have missed this horrific tackle seems just incredible.

With this kind of incident I agree with you - except I would empower a 4th Official watching the replays to relay information to the Referee to take the appropriate action at the next break in play, ie without any disruption to the game, AND giving the appropriate benefit to the other team at a time when they may directly benefit.

As a result of that disgusting challenge last night Everton lost a player who was playing extremely well and Spurs directly benefited. Subsequent 'trial by tv' is unsatisfactory imo, and entirely unecessary given existing technology.

-- Anonymous, August 21, 2001