Search results

A quick example of each (things I've seen in the last 2-3 weeks either on TV or live in fact...) Trip? Running along turn, and the guy following you trips over your trail leg as you're running. No offence, not even careless (well, maybe on your opponent's side... ha) Kick? Kicking the ball...

Also some equipment checks and paperwork to take care of. :)

Trip? Certainly. Kick? Certainly. Strike? Sure. I can think of a couple of ways. Hint: The head is involved. Jump at? Yup.

I agree. They're exceptionally clear and actually match up well with what has been taught and interpreted around the world* the last few years. *Except in England of course. ;)

Must not be moving due to the GK's intervention. That's all that they care about with that.

The language and wording, etc has been released now. http://theifab.com/backend/library/doc/changes-to-the-laws-and-clarifications-201920 http://theifab.com/backend/library/doc/summary-of-main-law-changes-2019-20

Let's use some better words here... Sterling is challenging for the ball by attempting to kick it. Just because his opponent gets there first doesn't mean that he's not committing an offside offence.

Running up and standing on the ball (ie, not letting them even have a chance to put it into play) is delaying the restart. Running up and standing a couple of metres/yards away? Failing to respect the distance. The difference here: Can the team with the free kick actually put the ball into...

Based on the fact that Skomina appeared to look at two replays (one "fast" and the other slow/frame-by-frame) I'd suggest that he didn't see the handling at all initially. I expect that, based on prior conversations we've heard from VARs along the way around the world, that it went something...

Several proposed changes were presented to the committees for futsal last year and they turned them back to have some deeper testing on a few of them proposed changes with an expectation that an initial round of changes might be made this coming summer. We'll see how it plays out...

That's ok, Clatts has stated that the Torreira tackle was clearly red because he slid in recklessly.

Nice moving of the goal posts. Clear that it DIDN'T also hit the arm.

The specific advice is "if it appears to be close, DO NOT flag". Not sure how much more specific the advice needs to be to be honest.

Here's a clip from the throw-in onward. https://streamable.com/s4p33

The text... Unfortunately, a lot of this (like MANY other things in the Laws) come down to teaching. But "DOG-H" (denying an obvious goal to use the older terminology before the cleanup) doesn't quite require the same considerations (the 4 Ds) that the rest of DOGSO does. Generally, there's...

Most of you seem to be conflating DOG-H with DOGSO-H. Denying an obvious goal, this is not. The considerations for the other half of the RC DOGSO-H offence are essentially similar to those for DOGSO-F. It's all about denying an obvious opportunity. Once a shot is taken, that's the opportunity...

The first part of the whistle blows before the kick is taken. That's when play stopped/ended.

Honestly, as someone who plays hockey... those shin pads just limit serious injury... not pain :)

Clip of just the incident so as not to have to hunt for it... https://streamable.com/l60zu

A lot of what they do with interpretations comes over 2-3 years, and if it's different from the Law, typically ends up going back to IFAB for wording changes, outright Law changes, etc. I suspect that the coming changes to the handling Laws have had exactly this happen. The practice has morphed...