Search results

It's not enough that the decision might be wrong, for VAR it must be a clear and obvious error. That nobody much commented on it, and with little reaction from the attack, it would seem that bar was nowhere in reach.

As said previously, any force beyond zero used against the referee is excessive, therefore dismissal for UEF for any push is entirely within law.

So, in all of that, why does it matter that the whistle hasn't been blown, if you're just going to penalise the first offence anyway? You still don't need the convoluted stuff about "decisions made in the mind of the referee stop play even though play hasn't stopped". Law 5 makes the whistle...

Well, which of the two principles requires additional posits to achieve the aim: "penalise the first offence of any number of offences" or "penalise the first offence of any number of offences except if the ball goes out of play, then act as if the ball went out of play when the first offence...

The law does support a TI decision as an alternative to the FK decision, if one sticks purely to the written letter. The point is that we're not robots: we choose the best of multiple options where they exist, precisely because the laws cannot record every possible situation and specify an...

But if there's only one offence, penalising the first offence is pretty easy, isn't it?

Law defines three things as the ball out of play. The ball physically leaving the field of play is the first, the laws say the whistle is not needed, so it has no relevance to the other two things. For the referee to stop play however, the whistle is needed.

Both of those situations are penalising the first offence because it is the first offence: "the foul is penalised as it has occurred before the offside offence" and "the offside offence is penalised as it has occurred before the foul challenge". The explanation couldn't be clearer here. There's...

The laws allow for a lot of things that don't seem fair or make sense if one wants to push them to that extent. That doesn't mean we would want to do them, nor does it mean we should, especially when there is a more sensible approach that is just as valid in law and leads to better outcomes...

😂 Now I know you're not even trying to show good faith. Not once have I said the first offence can't be penalised, never have I said that it shouldn't be. What I have said, and you keep skirting, is that a foul happening does not stop play, the referee thinking a foul has happened does not stop...

That's not the argument you and others have made. It's been stated several times that, when the referee decides in their mind that they will stop play, that play stops at that exact instant. If the referee has done so, they have decided that there is no advantage and they are not playing it. You...

Why not? There is only one offence, it occurred when the ball was in play, and therefore the free kick can be awarded for it. The fact that other things happened afterward doesn't mean this foul suddenly never existed. Now your turn. A defender fouls an attacker, the referee decides it is a...

Play is stopped by the referee when the referee blows the whistle. Not when they think play should be stopped or when they attempt to do so, but when they actually do stop it. Anything else is deliberately avoiding the most sure and objective signal available to the game, in place of the totally...

"Powers and Duties The referee: ... supervises and/or indicates the restart of play" If the referee is not supervising the restart, it should not occur, so this situation has nothing to do with whether the ball is in play in the referee's mind.

If a foul happens for which a FK can be given, then that FK can be given, because the foul occurred while the ball was in play. Give the FK. What else are you expecting to be said here? So, two fouls occur in quick succession while the referee has not yet decided either is a foul. According to...

Law says otherwise, however much "the referee's mind" wants otherwise. The ball is out of play when the referee stops play, not when they think something inside their head.

No - it is the moment the referee actually does stop play. Otherwise what, the ball is out of play when the foul happens and the referee decides to stop for it, but magically wasn't out of play if it went in the goal before the whistle and the referee awards a goal? The idea that play can be...

The ball is out of play if any of three things happen - "a foul is committed" is not one of them. The ball is in play at all other times - both fouls have occurred with the ball in play.

I don't think he's confused at all. He knows he can't legally get the ball, he knows nobody else can legally get the ball, he knows it will end up way off the field of play, so he just stops the game there and puts it down to make the next restart easy.

Because one affects the game and the opponent in a negative way, and has no sporting reason to be done; the other only helps the opponent and is done out of a sporting spirit. The law is being applied exactly the same in both cases. DFK for handball offence, caution for USB/SPA where it happens...