Search results

Why would you book him? He knows the ball is going out of play, and doesn't want to waste someone's time having to fetch another. He hasn't tried to gain any playing advantage out of it, and if anything he leaves the opponent in a better match position with a DFK than they would have been for...

This places a condition of deliberation on things where deliberation is irrelevant. Whether the player put the arm in unnatural position by choice doesn't determine that it is or isn't an offence; one can deliberately extend the arm to prevent injury while falling and it is fine, for example.

You don't seem to have lost the fixation on "deliberate" as if it's required for all handball offences and must be involved somehow when a handball offence occurs. Both the law and the tweet make it clear that other actions, even if not deliberate, can be handball offences. Being deliberate is...

And the assistant referee didn't flag it, and the middle referee did nothing about it, so we should get rid of them as well!

But, it just doesn't :confused: It says that the attacker kicking it into the defender's arm from close by, when the arm is in unnatural position, should be a DFK. It doesn't say anything about teammates kicking it into the arm, nor about unexpected deflections or plays of the ball that are not...

They've given exactly one situation where they say it will be an offence. They are not, at all, in any way, making every single case of unnatural position an offence. It is still usually an offence, there still exist exceptions and edge cases, this is just not one of them.

Exactly. It makes sense as a list of separate levels of surety, but makes no sense as different levels of involved deliberation or black-and-white yes-no categorisation. It is an offence if done deliberately or leads to a goal(scoring opportunity) - there is no exception, "yes, offence" every...

"Help him with what? He got it correct on his own." has got many players and staff to stop with pointless appeals and given us further credibility that we're agreeing on decisions. What would you do if a player said that verbatim to you as the referee? I don't presumption "nothing", so why not...

Too many abusive fool players, too many referees that don't make an effort to stay in this decade's laws, let alone this year's. That sounds exactly like a two-birds-one-stone situation to me. Maybe if FAs were prepared to do something effective and burn the chaff instead of "growing the game"...

I don't think Law 16 could be any more clear... "If, when a goal kick is taken, any opponents are inside the penalty area because they did not have time to leave, the referee allows play to continue." If the attacker is not finished retreating when the kick is taken quickly, they did not have...

Emphasis added, because that right there is all you need to think about. One team adhered to the law and was able to play eleven all the way. One team repeatedly breached the law and was disciplined appropriately. You can only do your role, and hope they do theirs.

It doesn't matter where they've played. This is basic sport, not limited to football, that any professional athlete should already have it drilled into them by years of training and experience: play to the whistle.

Meeting the standard for L4 means being better than the bulk of L5s, so getting "standard expected" while at L5 means one is not getting notably better than L5, and therefore does not yet demonstrate worthiness (FLOABW) of L4.

Don't make me make you decide to make me make a decision...

In other words, "Don't make me make a decision, because it might be one you don't like".

I'd offer to do that as the defender too, it means the opposition get the ball in their own box instead of potentially my half. Why would any attacker let them do it, when it puts the ball way back there instead of up here? If you don't want them to "pull a fast one" - don't let them have the...

If there was no offence, there is no reason to intervene at all. The offence is the incorrectness of procedure by the goalkeeper, who kicked the ball while it was moving and not in the goal area, and for which is prescribed a retake.

How can there not be an offence if the player has played the ball twice consecutively at a goal kick as in the video? Either they are not following procedure, for which the sanction is to retake it, or they are touching the ball after it is in play, for which the sanction is an IFK (and, if also...

Why wouldn't the game expect it? Sure, it's crazy unlikely so nobody expects the situation to even occur, but once it has, it is the clear denial of an obvious goalscoring opportunity by the goalkeeper committing an offence that does not fall under any exceptions. Has to be a dismissal every...

Absolutely. Dissent is about the decision, abuse is about the person. Calling an official a "f****** idiot" is straightforwardly about the official as a person, nothing about the decision at all, and abusive.