Search results

Contact clearly starts outside. So the only two ways you can justifiably give a penalty are either to describe it as a holding offence or to say that the contact outside was not a foul but the contact inside was a foul 😊

I would aver,age is also important …

This is unequivocally true at Level 3 and above, where there’s one national list. At Level 4, it’s true in each regional pool but marks in each region might well vary significantly (North v South especially … allegedly!). At 5 to 4, as there is a defined minimum mark required, it’s...

Because obviously, once they get older, players’ knowledge of the Laws becomes tremendous …. 🤔🤨

And I agree too (ooh, that’s almost a consensus!). The deflection off the body that then hits an arm in an unnatural position is the biggest area of uncertainty I have when it comes to judging handball offences. There is unquestionably recent PGMO guidance that supports the non handball call...

25m in 15 seconds is 100m per minute, 6000m per hour. So, 6km per hour. Certainly not much ‘recovery’ at that pace 😊

Was that anywhere close to the time you were trying to disagree with @RustyRef ?!?! 🤨🤔. #thetruthisoutthere

Certainly blowing your whistle before the ball crosses the line (justifying it by the obviously ‘promising attack’) would be a good approach. If the ball has entered the goal, then what you suggest is probably in line with expectations, especially if the ball hit you in the penalty area...

I think that’s a really well argued and coherent point of view. And ties in nicely with @JamesL view that we go against other football stakeholders at our peril. The challenge, in this context, is deciding the boundary between a ‘fringe’ case and the more widespread situations where the...

So, pop quiz in that context, where do we drop the ball if it rebounds off the referee and goes in the goal? Given that this is one of only three reasons to actually give the drop ball in these instances. Remembering that (theoretically at least) the ball could strike the referee either inside...

I've said before, I think the rewrite to Deliberate vs Deflection is a nightmare for officials. Not least because the actual law definition of a "Deliberate Play" is fundamentally different to typical language usage. It's no surprise therefore that all other football stakeholders will look at...

I think it's a great point that the standard of football / expected skill level of the player will impact our view as to Deliberate vs Deflection. In the Premier League, I'd absolutely see this as a Deliberate Play. On a Sunday morning, 100% as a Deflection. So our view on this particular...

I fully respect the thought that he achieved what he intended to achieve. But for me, all that he could possibly achieve was an instinctive ‘getting something on the ball’ rather than a controlled play as defined in law. What makes this look / feel different to many similar situations is that...

*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of: passing the ball to a team-mate; gaining possession of the ball; or clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it) The decision here does NOT come down to whether you think...

So, you’ve given up on the main original idea (caution wrong in law). And now questioning why Everton could not ‘go quick as they wished’. First occasion, 69”. Foul on Grealish results in Liverpool caution, so never going to be truly quick. Everton choose to set up with three players in...

I tend to agree. At lower levels, you put an attacker in motion, 6 yards out and in a clear offside position close to the GK eyeline, together with a clear appeal from the keeper that he’s been impacted and an offside flag would be entirely understandable. That said, a good reminder to all...

Like @JamesL , I see no 'obvious action' to penalise here. The impact in this case will solely have been a momentary loss of sight of the ball for the GK when the shot's path went behind the attacker. As the Law currently stands, this 'Line of Vision' impact could be penalised, but only if you...

As others have said, in purely LOTG technical terms, attempting (and failing) to play a ball can never be deemed “interfering with play”. It can, however, be “interfering with an opponent” but ONLY if the ball is close AND the attempt impacts an opponent. We can debate the niceties of the OP...