Search results

Clip starts 0:50 To my eye this looks like a missed offside offence, interesting one to watch due to the nature of offence and player movement. I wonder if anything was discussed over comms. The commentators take no notice.

I'm still curious whether the VAR protocol actually allows for downgraded DOGSO cautions following advantage to be upgraded to a sending off. Dale Johnson claims advantage was awarded on field. I think in this scenario if there is not a goal/no-goal decision, and Pawson decides not go back to...

The restart has to be a penalty kick because by the time play is stopped the holding has continued into the penalty area. My view is that to penalise DOGSO from a holding offence there only needs to be an OGSO at any moment during the holding, not necessarily at the time play is stopped...

If a referee awards advantage following a DOGSO foul is that really reviewable? Where is the clear and obvious error to justify VAR intervention? In this case of course the goal is reviewable but I am not sure Szoboszlai's foul is if advantage was awarded on field. A DOGSO foul where advantage...

Yes it is as @Hilly1618 says. There was no offence here.

Law 14 If, before the ball is in play, one of the following occurs: ... a team-mate of the goalkeeper offends: if the ball enters the goal, a goal is awarded if the ball does not enter the goal, the kick is retaken 'Verbally distracting an opponent during play or at a restart' is a...

Narrator: It did not make it onto the Mic'd up show. There would have been more value in seeing this incident discussed than a couple of the selected incidents.

This is just another example of unclear text in the laws. The award of the free kick is the 'punishment'. The cautions are 'disciplinary action'.

Looks deliberate. Aina is watching the ball come down, moves his arm into it to control the ball / keep it in play then moves the arm back into his team mate to stay upright. However I would also consider the preceding kick by Jesus a careless foul.

Incident at 2:01 I think this should be a fairly textbook non-deliberate handball offence, but PGMO is using its own rules here?

I don't know what the Welsh FA's regulations are like, but in England there is no maximum and a participant can be banned for life. I hope a criminal charge is brought in this case.

I tend to get 1 or 2 'wrong' usually on the clips that involve subjective decisions. However I still find it useful to learn from those when the correct answers are released as it helps to show the FA's expectations.

It is outside the VAR protocol because the reviewable sending off offences are DOGSO, SFP, VC, OFFINABUS and spitting.

No half decent ref is showing leniency when they see a player scuffing up the penalty mark. A caution could be given every time and some players would still do it, because it is worth 'taking one for the team' to make the opposition's penalty kick more difficult.

These premeditated cheating behaviours have to be dealt with from the top down. Players like to emulate what they see in the pro game. If it is made a sending off offence then VAR can help deal with it at the top level and set the right example for others. I do think a team of 3 officials...

Making 'unauthorised marks' on a penalty spot should be a sending off offence.

Very bad idea with a U18 player as this case involved.

Especially when the 3 who correctly thought it was a foul also thought it was reckless!

Poor angle?

Bet this one doesn't make it onto the Mic'd Up show either!