Search results

Defender has clearly intentionally circumvented the law. Had the ball been knee-high and he kneed it back to the GK, it's not a trick. Dropping to your knees to play the ball back to your GK to pick up is a trick. I think there's enough doubt over whether the attacker or GK would have got to it...

Just seen in a referee group on FB that someone emailed IFAB about it:

It can.

With respect, the opinion of your RDO (who is not part of the Discipline team) is not relevant here. Speak to your CFA Discipline Manager Tracey and you'll find that's not the way it's done.

That's not me saying how I feel suspensions should be imposed, that's me passing on what the guidance is that The FA have given to County FAs.

Any non-player suspension at grassroots level should be a ground ban, meaning the participant can't be in attendance before, during or after the fixture.

Can't appeal a successful "clearly insufficient" claim unless the additional suspension given is more than three matches.

Reckless not excessive force IMO, although there is certainly an argument it's endangering the opponent’s safety even with a lower amount of force used.

Deliberate strike with the hand to the opponent’s head using more than negligible force. It's in the LotG in black and white - it's violent conduct.

Does it though?

First one: for me the arm movement is justifiable for the situation - his arm hits the head of his teammate. Even if you deem it an unnatural position, is it actually making the body bigger though? The ball's going to be landing straight on his head anyway. Second one: not deliberate, not...

Defender stood on goal line, ball heading into the goal: - If the defender deliberately handles it - red - If the defender's arm is making their body unnaturally bigger (i.e. it's not an expected position given their movement) but they don't intentionally handle it - yellow - If the ball hits...

Answers on a postcard please boys and girls!

Not even close to being similar. He's lunging, off the ground, gone over the top of the ball, and there is far more than glancing contact half way up the shin.

Of course he would - back in his day (and indeed before his day, after his day, and all the way up to 2020) this was a foul no questions asked. It was only then that the definition of a holding offence was added to the LotG (and only tucked away in the glossary), meaning nearly all non-referees...

Not how it works. The holding must impede the opponent's movement in order to be an offence. The VAR deemed that to clearly and obviously not be the case. As did the referee when reviewing it.

What?

I feel I should point out that pulling a shirt alone is not an offence - it only becomes an offence if it impedes the opponent’s movement. It appears to me that the only person who impeded Young's movement was himself, by choosing to take a dive after feeling the pull.

You broke a bone in your foot, and you thought running on it again after a month was a good idea? And then refereeing and running 15k in under an hour in the space of one weekend two months afterwards? 🤦‍♂️ If it's still swelling up and so painful you can't even do a recovery run today, then...

I'm having a look through MOAS (yes I'm bored) - I reckon it was probably Chesterfield v Fleetwood on 3/5/14.