TBH...

The whole thing is one of those 1 in 1000000 type events where the rules don't cover it up. The sort of event which would have 2 high court judges squabbling back and forth with each other. It comes down to what is meant by the word 'intent'. Does intent mean Garrido planned to kick it back to Bunn or does intent mean he does kick it back to Bunn in a way that Bunn can deal with it without putting us at a disadvantage, in which case the back pass doesn't count because Garrido f**ked it up and Bunn had to give away a corner. You could go back and forth with it to be honest. In my eyes the ref did the right thing and rightly sided with the defending team, which is what I think should be done in that situation...

Posted By: POA, Dec 29, 23:42:36