Search results

But no doubt you're happy to penalise an accidental trip when a player slides to try tackling the ball with their foot. Why is this any different? The spirit of the game is that you don't play the ball with your hands or arms. Too many players just say "I didn't mean to stop it with my arm!" -...

Different countries != Different levels. You go easier on the ones who are there for a run and fun and getting drun(k), you ping even the subtle stuff and adhere to the standards set at that level in the pros. That's the same regardless of where you are - a pro in England should expect the...

Where was the "strong" player going - toward the ball and competing for space, with contact a secondary consequence of wanting the first opportunity to play the ball, or towards the opponent and invading space, with contact the purpose to prevent the opponent from having an opportunity at all...

No sanction. The red player kicks away the ball to prevent the blue opponent taking it at speed. That blue opponent then runs at speed into the leg which is still in follow-through movement. If the red player had missed the ball and then caught the blue opponent, absolutely a card, probably...

"Based on" - if you're in certain parts of it, and if you ignore 200+ years of divergence. Huge swathes of law on the same matter are completely different in the USA versus the UK or Britain or England.

Exactly what I said. So at best we have a question that has no correct answer (wut.) or that's the one it should be, yet it isn't.

You forgot to make an answer for Question 5 be correct. It's

Goal overturned: yes, the offside player partly obscures the goalkeeper's vision. Right to send it for a field check, fair to call it for the textbook example reason. PK refused: very soft if anything, the attacker goes down easily from incidental contact. Fair to say play on. Not a clear and...

That part of the law only applies if it is not one of those above offences, among which is "touches the ball with their hand/arm when: the hand/arm has made their body unnaturally bigger the hand/arm is above/beyond their shoulder level"

Award the goal, show the yellow for USB, then the red for second caution.

This is just a copy-paste of what the laws tell us. Except the laws version is shorter and uses readable formatting. This is nothing but spam masquerading as an attempt to educate.

PK, then red for DOGSO, and orange for the tackle after he's on the ground.

This is total ********. Other sports require far more complex decisions, made at a far higher rate, on situations occuring at much higher pace than football typically involves. You're being asked to choose between deliberate, unintended but unfair, or incidental and acceptable. The laws are...

"Barely touching" is inside the corner area. Would have thought a Level 3 would know that, though.

Pretty much correct, except "manufacturing an offence" is no longer a thing (either it really is an offence by the defender, or the attacker who made it happen was doing something wrong/dangerous of their own first). I still don't know why an IFK in the PA is not simply made a CK. Clears up all...

Before, the mistakes were because of political interference with how the laws say VAR should work. Now, the mistakes will be because of FIFA's political interference. Clearly this is preferable, FIFA has no trouble with corruption.

If the intent is to prevent unnecessary delay to the game, no exact limit should be prescribed at all. Leave it to the referee to make a decision about how long is too long: Once the goalkeeper has clear space around them, the impending free kick against the goalkeeper is shown by a raised arm...

You can have your view, and others can criticise the part of it that you put in public for how it contradicts known experience or has absolutely zero rational basis in facts. Your point is clear, it's also thoroughly unhelpful, in the first place for being so far from reality as to make one...

It wouldn't matter if a thousand referees died right now, there are still thousands of others who would live. So, again, unless you are seriously expecting the majority of football to be forever lost, making nonsense predictions and then hiding behind "nobody really knows the future" is very...

If thermonuclear war were sharp on the horizon, that might be a legitimate point, but unless you expect the total collapse of civilization to the point football never occurs again, seems more like an avoidance of acknowledging the total groundlessness of the prediction.