Search results

Stop play when there is a potential serious injury. Law 5 says to allow play to continue until the ball is out of play 'if a player is only slightly injured'. So you need to be confident it is not a serious injury in order to continue.

@RustyRef if the contrarian pundits are going to complain either way, I'd rather at least have it reffed according to the LOTG than ignoring offences like this.

@RefereeX I thought it would be worth doing a bit of analysis based on the PGMO guidance. 'Acts of holding that have clear material impact and/or are extreme non-footballing actions will be penalised.' Material impact is defined as 'Opportunity for opponent to challenge for or play the ball'...

Law only requires player movement to be impeded for there to be a holding offence, which is clear and obvious in this case. When I refer to 'questionable officiating for holding offences' it is mainly referring to PGMO's overall approach to it.

Even without a law change the professional competitions could issue a warning that further similar incidents will have the circumstances assessed, and clubs charged with bringing the competition into disrepute where it is considered probable that the injury was non-existent or exaggerated.

First highlight 00:51 - no penalty for a clear foul, another example of the questionable officiating for holding offences and VAR Paul Tierney did not proceed to a review for this 1:42 - goal correctly disallowed for offside after VAR review but should have been flagged on field 2:00 - penalty...

I had a similar situation a couple of weeks ago, in terms of the timing of events, though it was not an OGSO / open goal. Attacker fouled outside the box, ball immediately went to a team mate close by who struck it first time wildly high and wide. I had not signalled advantage and decided to...

The screen is not visible all around the stadium. BBC Sport has acknowledged this in a follow up article, along with the context of the incident in the reverse fixture. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwy8njdrg7xo Yes Leeds players went for a chat too but they had already started...

But there was a team talk going on throughout and the people I have spoken to have told me it was about that, appearing to take advantage of the stoppage. On TV Peter Bankes was showing two fingers in a way that would not have been visible to spectators. Were there any stadium announcements...

Totally agree about Farke, I don't think an appeal is going to get anywhere. I have since spoken with people who were at the game, and in their view the boos were mainly about the team talk. In the reverse fixture this season Donnarumma went down 'injured' to allow Guardiola to speak to his...

A few talking points coming out of this one. Cherki stamp on Gruev when play was stopped with no sanction given. I can just about understand VAR not intervening but think Cherki is lucky to not have been binned. Farke sent off at full time for confronting the officials (I am guessing about the...

Excessive force is not a requirement for SFP when the opponent's safety is endangered.

No subscription fee is a benefit (compared to RefSix Pro at least).

You seem to have overlooked an obvious cut in the footage between those two statements. The 'end of' is clearly addressed to the player.

Peter Bankes is on the new episode of Mic'd Up discussing the incident, he is still happy with his decision.

Not correctly taken in law as not thrown 'from the point where it left the field of play'. However the same probably applies to 99.9% of throw-ins, unless we have more refs than I imagine who insist on the thrower being at the exact blade of grass where the ball left.

Even when there is not a feint after the run up is completed, if the ball is not kicked a caution can still be issued for delaying the restart. As others have said, the restart is not changed and the penalty kick can be taken.

I think it's a legitimate interpretation that this is making the body unnaturally bigger or that the player has deliberately spread themselves out as much as possible including the arm position. It's just the Premier League that has set an expectation of a higher threshold including ignoring any...

And if there had been no rain or light rain, but the match had been postponed early due to an incorrect weather forecast, I'm sure everyone would have been fine with it :rolleyes:

We have very little context here. If it was deliberate non-reporting then it was not an 'honest mistake' and unless there was some other mitigation than it being a first offence I can well understand why a commission would go for the top end sanction.