Search results

Is it 'violent' by the dictionary definition? No. Is it deliberately striking an opponent in the head using more than negligible force? Yes. So VAR 100% to recommend a review for a missed sending off offence. I'd hope the keeper got a caution for his part in the proceedings.

"Probably better to give" why? The arm is in a natural position, it's not deliberate, and he doesn't score from it. a) No, because it's not a handling offence b) No, because as @JamesL has pointed out, a non-deliberate handling DOGSO in the area isn't a sending off.

And that makes it handball how?

"My opinion is the truth, and anyone who disagrees is mentally ill" 🥱🥱🥱

The OP is from Worcester, England rather than Worcester, Massachusetts, so I feel it necessary to point out that over here fines and suspensions related to cards or misconduct charges are nothing to do with the league - they are dealt with by the County FA. I would say it's unlikely that he's...

Not surprised, but equally I don't think it proves that the referee was wrong. The individuals on these panels are not always people with in-depth knowledge of the LotG, or experience of refereeing. And the way wrongful dismissal claims work, no further evidence 'in favour' of the red card (e.g...

No. 20 minutes' football is worse than none. Starting a match in the sheer hope of getting through it, and then a player getting cautioned, sent off, or injured isn't in anyone's interests when you know you're likely going to abandon it unless the weather suddenly changes (especially as it...

There is a clearly marked area, and Martinez quite clearly does not enter it, so it's definitely not a caution for that. However, you could certainly argue that his leaving the FoP is cautionable, or his attempting to influence the referee during the review.

This has changed a little (though no difference for the OP here) - this is taken direct from the 24/25 FA Handbook:

Part of the player is definitely on the goal line when the corner was taken, so there's nothing wrong with the corner here. Even if he had been slightly off the field as the corner was taken, I don't think it would be within VAR's remit, as the 'offence' would have been committed prior to the...

It makes me furious that anyone can get to the top level and be so oblivious about such a fundamental aspect of the LotG. And I'm blaming every single official on- and off-field here equally, not just the VAR. Not one of them has pointed out that the VAR is wrong in law. Not one!

Almost every comment I've seen on social media from non-referees agrees that this is a sending off. I'm fed up of this ******** of having to second-guess "what football expects". Especially when what we're being told what football expects is clearly not what football expects.

I'd be a little wary of this approach - the first point of contact might not necessarily the point at which a foul actually occurs!

As the Laws are currently written, I'd find it difficult to justify a sending off here. However, I'd like to see the neck/throat included in the caveat under violent conduct where any deliberate strike to the head/face with non-negligible force when not challenging for the ball is deemed VC.

Any pull/holding is only an offence if it impedes the opponent’s movement, so I would say that how "fleeting" it is is definitely relevant.

Bet Neil Hair was dead chuffed with The S*n for that ****-up!

Much like deliberately striking the head/face is violent conduct unless the force used is negligible, it should absolutely be the same logic involving hair pulling.

Not an 'elbow' as I originally thought, but the attacker has zero chance of playing the ball here - he's jumped too late (or is two feet too short, take your pick), and his arm hits the keeper in the chest mid-air right as the keeper is about to catch the ball.

The attacker doesn't play the ball, and elbows the keeper in the ribs, preventing him from catching the ball. I really don't see how this is controversial!

DOGSO yellow. Remove the foul, Bellingham has a shot on goal from 8 yards.