Search results

DOGSO-F. Textbook "accidental" foul by defender coming back.

Naivete is as naive referee does...

This isn't disagreement with the decision, it's purely a personal attack. Offensive, insulting, and abusive. Red card without regret.

"Have possession of the ball" is not relevant when deciding who gets a dropped ball. Law 8.2 is fairly clear, there are only two choices: a single player of the team that last touched the ball, or if the touch or ball itself was in a penalty area, the corresponding goalkeeper.

I'd rather get the free version, where any submitted video is deleted for copyright violation, then a five minute delay is triggered, before an automated message tells you the decision was fine.

Law 12.3 is pretty clear. "A player must be cautioned, even if the goal is disallowed, for ... gesturing or acting in a provocative, derisory or inflammatory way [or] removing the shirt or covering the head with the shirt". I've emphasised the important words and phrases. The referee does not...

It was clearly the player who played the ball through, that was then tripped and prevented from playing it further. You might argue the PIOP is "interfering with an opponent by ... challenging an opponent for the ball" but that doesn't occur until the first attacker has been fouled anyway, so...

As much as it would be a godsend in dealing with a significant number of problem players, "Don't be a 🦆" is not in LOTG.

Nah. What he said. It doesn't matter whether it was accidental, even clearly accidental, if the arm is in an unnatural position, the handball is usually an offence.

Red and PK. Holding which continues into the circle, followed by the leg wrap which is nowhere near the ball.

It's usually a handball offence when the hand or arm makes the body unnaturally bigger. That doesn't require deliberation by the player at all - why say that every handball penalised must have been deliberate when this is not true?

On the other hand, there's a fundamental philosophical separation between physical fouls and handball. With fouls, the line between careless and reckless doesn't mean much in terms of whether a free kick is given - the only real difference is whether a card is justifiable or required. And even...

So the application of the law hasn't changed, yet people are still complaining about it.

Just a bit late there, chappie.

Alternatively, wait for the attacker to set the ball and line their planted foot properly and then begin their back-stepping, then simply replace it elsewhere on the penalty mark in such a way that they'll not be able to properly run up, or will need to place it again. No delay in the game as...

No need to define simulation when the book does it for us. I added some emphasis on the bit that matters most here. A player who was fouled is not simulating a foul; using the word to describe such a situation is inaccurate and misleading.

It's not an anomaly. If the attacker scores, the goal has not been denied, caution for USB. If the attacker does not score, the OGSO has been denied, dismissal every time. If the defender wants to stay on the field, maybe they shouldn't DOGSO!

The attacker flings his legs out forward, he isn't trying to keep running once he is fouled because he knows any chance after that is worse than the PK. Watching slow motion, the defender has already let go by the time the shoulders start to drop. It's a dive, but it only emphasises the...

When you've got the video, DOGSO is clear enough. At real speed, without the angle, that could be a decision in any direction or none.

It's definitely careless, probaby reckless, but if he disrupts that ball enough to put it in the space where his teammate is running, that's a good chance at a free shot. To say there's no reason except to injure? To point out the obvious (if there wasn't contact it wouldn't be commented on)...