Search results

If they have a FIFA referee badge, they're supposed to wear that when acting as a referee (but not when acting as an AR). If they have a FIFA AR badge, they wear that when acting as an AR (but not when acting as a referee).

Problem with your phrasing is that it comes across as "if there's no loss of consciousness or vomiting, it's not a concussion." Concussion is an odd thing, and delays before treatment can be very dangerous.

You forgot something really important in your first sentence. "Symptoms of concussion CAN include" They don't always. I've seen bad concussions that didn't have either of those as symptoms when the incident happened.

That's because the goal kick was already covered in Circular 16: http://theifab.com/backend/library/doc/circular-16-clarification-law-16-the-goal-kick-en

It wasn't the original intent, no, but the wording was softened in the Law and the direction that came with it was as @cwyeary states.

Because that's the Law in Law 8?

That was (almost) the Futuro (FIFA) guidelines previously. There's supposed to be an understanding now that the force is also important, not just the point and type of contact. What about a tackle with the side of the foot onto the shin... is that a red card? Your comment suggests that it...

That's a FIFA thing. If contact is with studs/cleats above the ankle, then start with a red card and then see if there's reason to bring that down to a yellow (like glancing contact only, no/negligible force, etc). In this situation, the player steps onto the Achilles, and as he steps, his...

Because one of the things that was actually done at the time was a defender taking a FK, lifting the ball up to his teammate's head who headed it directly back to their GK. Lots of weird wordings and Laws are on the book because they actually happened. Like the GK scoring an own goal on a CK...

If he's not named on teh team sheet, then he cannot be in the technical area. Deal with the simple issue proactively before it gets more complicated. Arguably, you could treat this the same way you treat a player. "Oh, you won't give your name? Here's a second caution, now leave." When I have...

So, interesting update: Denmark's FA has come out (in writing) and said that this is NOT allowed. Dutch FA has come out (in writing) and said that this IS allowed. A referee education group in Germany has stated that they have information via a UEFA member group from the IFAB saying it is...

Dissent has always been considered "more serious" from a disciplinary standpoint, but the point that I (and others) have been trying to make on this thread is that it's almost NEVER both offences simultaneously... it's almost ALWAYS one or the other. In that occasional situation where it can...

But... they're not always two offences. It's not always dissent. It's not always delaying the restart. You, as a referee, have to be able to read what's happening/happened well enough to actually be able to figure out what just happened, and context tells you that. It will always be one or...

It can be either. Dissent (disagreeing with your decision and showing it by booting the ball away) or delaying the restart of play (booting the ball away so that his team can set up appropriately). It's all about the context in which it happens.

Yeah, but OP seems to think that this is a caution for preventing release... see the bit on the prior game. In addition to that, once the attack is allowed to continue/take place... it wasn't stopped or interfered with, so therefore, one shouldn't go back to caution for SPA.

A YC isn't needed on preventing release. If the same player does it 2-3 times... then consider persistent offences. But as a one-off? No need for the caution.

FIFA has already pushed out material that is precisely in line with what IFAB published (not a real surprise, as what's found in the Law books now is very close to what FIFA has been using as interpretation for the last 2-3 years). UEFA has typically been the confederation that tinkers the...

There were two, depending on where you were: The UEFA style (arm from elbow down bad, arm from elbow up not so bad) The CONCACAF/CONEMBOL style (arm bad) This is, of course, for the support arm when sliding. The new writing of the Laws takes the two of them, kinda tries to split the...

It's been disseminated in Canada. We've already had this discussion before about how it doesn't seem to be working quite as well in England (for whatever reason).

That was the big push in year one of the new DOGSO. Elite (ie FIFA) referees and instructors pushed back and the interpretation has changed over the last couple of years towards giving benefit of the doubt to the defender, and leaning towards a caution (YC) unless it's serious foul play...