Search results

I can't see any video, have you put the wrong link? It would make some sense if the intention of the law is to prevent sudden counter-attacks. i.e. ball hits referee leading to a change of possession, everyone gets a chance to set up again even if it is a different team with the ball now...

The above is correct, and the fee for middles is £75. For midweek afternoon kick-offs there is an additional £15 allowance per match official.

IFAB's FAQ in Law 9 confirms it has changed.

68th minute, poor AR wiped out in a collision but he's OK!

49th minute, Luton kick ball which deflects off the referee and is clearly going to Wimbledon's possession. Referee drops to wrong team (Luton) and from the wrong position under the updated law? Caveat: watching without sound so not sure when the whistle went, but to drop from that position...

All the best for your season!

Even before 'captains only' we have had wide discretion in how we want to manage players. We could (should) give dissent cautions for being surrounded or for players refusing instructions to go away if we want to speak with the captain alone, regardless of a specific rule. Competitions have to...

While there doesn't seem to be an explicit restriction, youth games won't help your promotion prospects very much as the levels of appointments are taken into account.

Nothing is being contradicted. You have focused on the second link in the email which is to IFAB's website, saying competitions have the option which is true in countries that do not require the protocol to be implemented. However the first link in the email is to The FA Refereeing Department's...

Smart tracksuits foster an undercurrent of familiarity between match officials and participants, formal wear fosters an undercurrent of difference. Anyone breaking dress code by wearing shorts etc needs to be robustly warned that it is not acceptable.

We have been told: Yes the Only the Captain Protocol is applicable across all competitions in England Breach is disciplined with a caution for dissent (including temporary dismissal at Step 5 and below) The protocol will be activated by telling the players, not by a gesture / signal

Based on this angle it looks like a deliberate follow through by the defender to bring down the attacker so I would say free kick and DOGSO.

I suspect it will turn up in the Laws for 2026-27 but for now it is too late to change the text so a 'clarification' is the only way to do it.

The hard work starts now is a phrase I have heard several times today, I'm ecstatic to have made it to L4 and can't wait for next season!

Thanks I can take it that what he said was in all likelihood relayed accurately, though it is still reasonable to consider he was probably subconsciously predisposed to not intervene on this given sending off a GK is one of the most impactful decisions to make.

Without the comms, we aren't sure whether Gillett was reasoning for not DOGSO or for not C&O.

This is a 'serious missed incident' case as the probable DOGSO offence was not spotted on field (free kick not awarded). Gillett seems to have applied the C&O bar when not required. It also suggests a flaw in the protocol because Gillett is refereeing the incident when really for any potential...

The FA needs to bring a Successful Deception case here! Has there been one in a match with VAR before?

RMTV's video is disgraceful and I'm glad the officials have had an opportunity to publicise what they are going through. Also, professing the 'freedom of expression' of its media outlet while labelling the officials' statements as 'unacceptable' 😂

0:26 - potential SFP - think it's a borderline rather than C&O 2:55 - missed incident, potential SFP - Collum sticks with decision despite successful appeal, personally I don't think the appeal should have been allowed as red is not an obvious error but would have preferred yellow with...