Search results

Nonsense. It clearly is in the spirit. The arm didn't need to be extended. Nor does it matter that it's not deliberate, since that is only sufficient, not a necessary condition. Whatever you might think the law should be, you're not thinking about what it actually is now.

And yet ARs survive spending their whole game off the sidelines. Keep an extra few security personnel near the screen, use a enlarged shelter, and accept that PL crowds are always obnoxious about referees to some degree, more so about VAR at the moment.

Because as made clear by this thread, let alone all the others, the opinion of what should and should not be handball depends hugely on who is asked, to the point where the same incident is clear handball PK red to many people and absolutely natural position no foul play on to many others. The...

Wait until you hear the magic of using your fingers to cover the holes. ... If you want to modulate the tone upwards to a higher fundamental, covering one of the top-side holes on a Fox40 while blowing properly will do it, giving you almost a second type of whistle for "emergency" incidents.

The arm extended laterally is not supporting the body at all - the defender's back and the shoulder of the extended arm are in contact with the ground during part of the slide. That section of law does not appear to be relevant and does not excuse the contact between ball and hand.

Suarez, 2010, is the easiest example to point to, and there are numerous others available. The defender doesn't have to know when the pullback is coming, or even that it is. They're committing to the tackle with the legs, but hedging their bet against the chance the attacker either sees them...

Generally agree with your thoughts on both these situations. 1. Definitely a promising attack, and if the holding stops it, bang to rights on a caution for SPA, and DFK as a physical offence. If that was the only defender, I would need a lot more to call it DOGSO, but my patience for any...

It's definitely in the tongue. If you're not getting the "flicker" that you want, the only answer is to practise. Start slow to get the mechanics right, spend a few minutes per day, and build your speed up gradually.

No, the VAR definitely could not have done that. They could have said they see the ball clearly strike the arm in an unnatural position which prevented it from reaching another attacker who would have had a clear shot at goal. But they couldn't say it's a PK and red (or even that it's a PK and...

This is pretty clearly handball. I presume you don't disagree with the PK, so it must be the card (or colour thereof). There's pretty clear justification in law for the card: either DOGSO-H for the red or USB-H-SPA for the yellow. It seems clear that, if not for contact with the arm, the ball...

The attacker has no chance either, when the arm is extended out that far for no legitimate reason. This isn't good enough in the laws to not award the free kick, or in this case, penalty kick. "It is usually an offence if a player: touches the ball with their hand/arm when: the hand/arm has...

Well, you know what they say.

Idiots have always argued that a single foul (that relies solely on TOOTR and made by a vastly more experienced and knowledgeable person) or a specific offside decision (made from 50 metres to only a few inches of accuracy) have ruined the game and spend hours more talking about it than the...

It's been reasonably clear to an impartial observer for a long time that the average fan, wants the decisions to go in their team's favour when it matters, accuracy in fact and correctness in law be damned, because human perceptions are naturally biased to inflate benefits and deficits affecting...

Yes. Nothing in law mentions who the kicker is, except that they must be "clearly identified". As long as the change is (made more) obvious, this requirement is satisfied. Once the change is known, the new kicker is the only kicker, so far as law is concerned.

My card for this tackle would very much be swayed by the context up until that point. If we've had a great clean contest at 0-0, a firmly delivered caution and a word to both captains is going to put a ring around this. Messy, lopsided, a few cautions already, this is an easy dismissal to make a...

If there was only a question of whether this is really red or that someone has missed the law justifying yellow, maybe people wouldn't have jumped. But suggesting that this appeal would require a mental deficiency, and not say, more of understanding the law subtleties than of emotional reaction...

"A foot off the ground"? "All his weight"? Nope. Is it done without regard for the safety of the opponent? Sure. Does that mean it used more force or energy than necessary? Having just sprinted across the field to get there, anything less would have seen the ball gone before the tackle happened.

Reckless, sure. Serious foul play? I'm doubtful. But I must be mentally deficient if I'm disagreeing, surely :rolleyes:

Your description of the NRL Bunker process is not accurate. The onfield officials must make a 'Live' decision, true, but they do not need to request a check of any specific event or potential breach. If and when the Bunker find a breach of rules by the try-scoring team (or can conclude no breach...