Ian

No, it’s to stop the exposure of sponsors being removed

No, it’s down to sponsor exposure, or lack of

Because sponsors pay tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds to have their name on the front of shirts hoping for exposure…..photo’s of players often get publicised just after they have scored so for a player to have removed the sponsor from that photo massively wee wees off the sponsor. and yes I know plenty will say that’s a ridiculous reason but that’s what it is and the money they pay goes towards the same players wages who then take off the shirt.

Do you know why it’s a rule?

So the only way anyone can show passion is to take their shirt off? As for the stupid rule, I take it you don't know why it was brought in or that you aren't forking out tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds in shirt sponsorship?

Because the opposition have to all be in their own half before they can

ive already posted that now try the bit we are disputing

As previously requested why don’t you just shut us all up by posting a screen shot of the relevant IFAB law

Not sure you'll find any Chesterfield fans to agree with you

Tell you what Howard...why don't you post the relevant page from the IFAB app to show you are correct. Either that or dont

OWLS1867OWLS is either confused himself or trying to confuse people. Just stick with reading the Laws of the game (12.2) and the guidance as posted and you’ll understand

In summary if you ignore anything OWLS1867OWLS has posted and just read the IFAB laws and guidance as posted then it’s clear. OWLS1867OWLS is just muddying the waters and changing what he claims he’s trying to say without backing it up with anything from the laws of the game

Ok….you keep talking about hypothetical things and I’ll continue on what happened in the game

Once he’d Attempted to clear it there was no back pass to be confused about

Your initial post did not cover what actually happened in the game, I.e that if he had picked it up after attempting to clear it then it would have been neither of your scenarios, it would have been play on