<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Not Fit - City Lose 2-1 To MK Dons</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk/2008/04/26/not-fit-city-lose-2-1-to-mk-dons/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk/2008/04/26/not-fit-city-lose-2-1-to-mk-dons/</link>
	<description>Bradford City news since 1998</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 00:42:39 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael Wood</title>
		<link>http://www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk/2008/04/26/not-fit-city-lose-2-1-to-mk-dons/comment-page-1/#comment-11</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael Wood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 19:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bfb.cabinpressure.co.uk/?p=169#comment-11</guid>
		<description>I disagree with the idea that Wilbraham did not need permission to come back on - he had gone a long way over the line and was past the ad boards and into the front of the away supporters - but I understand that the Referee would not expect to have to wave him back on.  The onus in this situation is on the player to return to the field without effecting the course of play which he did not do.

In reference to the Dublin incident the Head of Refereeing at the time, George Courtney, said on reviewing that game that the correct thing for the official to do on that day would have been award a free kick to Newcastle and book the striker for gentlemanly conduct. He was the boss of the Refs and he said the Ref got it wrong.

Imagine if you will that Loach had played the ball out and had it returned by a Dons player while Wilbraham was off the field. He could not be flagged as offside as he is not on the field - where would one take the free kick? - so if he is allowed to re-enter the field he could amble on and score unfettered.

Following that logic - allowing players who leave the field to re-enter at a time and place of their own choosing - a player could stand behind the defensive line but off the field and only sneak back on after a pass had been played to avoid offside.

From a technical point of view the rule on leaving the field has justification and much merit and not allowing players to break it as Wilbraham is as basic a job as not allowing offsides and fouls in a game.

From a moral point of view a goal scored as Dublin did and Wilbraham tried to is without merit. I doubt football fans on the whole want deception and stealth abilities to sneak up on goalkeepers adding to the game any more than they want to laud the abilities of players to dive to who penalties and the rules of the game are right to focus on good play.

A keeper should not have to scout for hidden opponents in the rows of the stand behind him and players should have more respect for fair play than to try score goals that are not only illegal in the rules of the game but are so far out of the spirit of it.

I do not think that Wilbraham tried to cheat - after Dublin he probably assumes what he did was fair - but it was not and the Referee should know that and the reasons why it is not and be able to act accordingly by blowing his whistle when Wilbraham starts to interfere with play indicating that he has broken the tacit agreement that he can come back without permission as long as he does not do so in a way that gives his side an advantage.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I disagree with the idea that Wilbraham did not need permission to come back on - he had gone a long way over the line and was past the ad boards and into the front of the away supporters - but I understand that the Referee would not expect to have to wave him back on.  The onus in this situation is on the player to return to the field without effecting the course of play which he did not do.</p>
<p>In reference to the Dublin incident the Head of Refereeing at the time, George Courtney, said on reviewing that game that the correct thing for the official to do on that day would have been award a free kick to Newcastle and book the striker for gentlemanly conduct. He was the boss of the Refs and he said the Ref got it wrong.</p>
<p>Imagine if you will that Loach had played the ball out and had it returned by a Dons player while Wilbraham was off the field. He could not be flagged as offside as he is not on the field - where would one take the free kick? - so if he is allowed to re-enter the field he could amble on and score unfettered.</p>
<p>Following that logic - allowing players who leave the field to re-enter at a time and place of their own choosing - a player could stand behind the defensive line but off the field and only sneak back on after a pass had been played to avoid offside.</p>
<p>From a technical point of view the rule on leaving the field has justification and much merit and not allowing players to break it as Wilbraham is as basic a job as not allowing offsides and fouls in a game.</p>
<p>From a moral point of view a goal scored as Dublin did and Wilbraham tried to is without merit. I doubt football fans on the whole want deception and stealth abilities to sneak up on goalkeepers adding to the game any more than they want to laud the abilities of players to dive to who penalties and the rules of the game are right to focus on good play.</p>
<p>A keeper should not have to scout for hidden opponents in the rows of the stand behind him and players should have more respect for fair play than to try score goals that are not only illegal in the rules of the game but are so far out of the spirit of it.</p>
<p>I do not think that Wilbraham tried to cheat - after Dublin he probably assumes what he did was fair - but it was not and the Referee should know that and the reasons why it is not and be able to act accordingly by blowing his whistle when Wilbraham starts to interfere with play indicating that he has broken the tacit agreement that he can come back without permission as long as he does not do so in a way that gives his side an advantage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Earl Purple</title>
		<link>http://www.boyfrombrazil.co.uk/2008/04/26/not-fit-city-lose-2-1-to-mk-dons/comment-page-1/#comment-10</link>
		<dc:creator>Earl Purple</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 May 2008 02:05:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bfb.cabinpressure.co.uk/?p=169#comment-10</guid>
		<description>Wilbraham did not actually require permission to come back on as he hadn't actually left the field as such, his momentum had carried him over the line.

There was a similar incident a few years ago where Dion Dublin, then at Coventry, did exactly the same against Newcastle only he scored, unlike Wilbramah who missed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wilbraham did not actually require permission to come back on as he hadn&#8217;t actually left the field as such, his momentum had carried him over the line.</p>
<p>There was a similar incident a few years ago where Dion Dublin, then at Coventry, did exactly the same against Newcastle only he scored, unlike Wilbramah who missed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
