A&H

Rotherham United v Huddersfield Town

The Referee Store
Looks like 2 excellent decisions.

1st booking is for dissent and the second is so clearly a dive, he's going down before the challenge.
 
On another note, in situations like this, do we think the player genuinely believes they've been fouled (as in they've even bought their own dive and convinced themselves) and they're hard done by, or do you think this reaction of disbelief is to save face?
 
RefereeX said:
Obviously wearing them silly small ones, but as has been done to death on here, that's not the referee's problem.
Click to expand...
That’s debatable under current Law. That’s why IFAB is making it explicitly the player’s responsibility in the planned changes for this year.
 
socal lurker said:
That’s debatable under current Law. That’s why IFAB is making it explicitly the player’s responsibility in the planned changes for this year.
Click to expand...
It's not debatable really, it's just not clearly obvious in the writing of the laws of the game.

We have received plenty of information to guide us that as long as a player is wearing them, our responsibility ends.
 
As the Laws are written, it is absolutely debatable (or maybe even mandates that Rs determine shinguards are adequate )

Law 4 says

The players must be inspected before the start of the match and substitutes before they enter the field of play. If a player is wearing or using unauthorised/dangerous equipment or jewellery, the referee must order the player to: …​
​
• shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks​

As written the referee responsibility includes making sure shin guards are safe, which means, as defined in Law that they provide adequate protection. That referees are told not to worry about that doesn’t change what is written in Law. That’s why it’s being changed—to bring what it says in line with what we all know is really expected.
 
Can anyone tell me if there is any other place on earth except on a football pitch, when a person is about to fall, their hands go up in the air instead of down towards the ground to break their fall?

Screenshot_20240319-003709~2.jpg
 
socal lurker said:
As the Laws are written, it is absolutely debatable (or maybe even mandates that Rs determine shinguards are adequate )

Law 4 says

The players must be inspected before the start of the match and substitutes before they enter the field of play. If a player is wearing or using unauthorised/dangerous equipment or jewellery, the referee must order the player to: …​
​
• shinguards – these must be made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection and covered by the socks​

As written the referee responsibility includes making sure shin guards are safe, which means, as defined in Law that they provide adequate protection. That referees are told not to worry about that doesn’t change what is written in Law. That’s why it’s being changed—to bring what it says in line with what we all know is really expected.
Click to expand...
I hate to be pedantic but it says 'made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection'. This means you can't use paper and call it a shin guard. The only reference that could relate to size is that the socks must cover them.
Nothing is changing in terms of the responsibility of the referee, just the wording of the law to clarify that for everyone.
 
RefereeX said:
I hate to be pedantic but it says 'made of a suitable material to provide reasonable protection'. This means you can't use paper and call it a shin guard. The only reference that could relate to size is that the socks must cover them.
Nothing is changing in terms of the responsibility of the referee, just the wording of the law to clarify that for everyone.
Click to expand...
You just proved his point 🤣😁 by debating it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top