Search results

@Russell Jones Do they show another camera angle. It doesn't look particular close to contacting the attacker after the defender plays it in the OPs video. Although the trajectory/spin of the ball might suggest it did

Don't think I've ever whistled one without any contact. Tackles an opponent could fit for a DFK in both contact and non-contact scenarios? Actually makes a difference in Futsal whether it's an IDFK or DFK; incidents like this are far more common to.

Attacker may have got a touch before the defender played it but that's very clearly a deliberate play by the defender.

Yes, to a degree. Otherwise the comms information is largely irrelevant. More properly it lowers the bar for what is a clear and obvious error.

@DavidObs From an observer perspective you may back him making a credible judgement about line of sight. VAR doesn't say from the ARs position he's got a credible view. It decides from the best angle available whether the AR was clearly and obviously wrong. There's not even a debate about it...

The AR is entitled to hold a view; in this case he was clearly wrong about line of sight.

As soon as line of sight is mentioned it throws into doubt the rest of what the assistant says. Clear and obvious is meant to stop re-refereeing if the assistant has misseen something then clear and obvious goes out the window. The referee also should've inputted that line of sight wasn't an issue.

Did it once with club linos. Looked over at the start and the assistants were in right backs position (team benches were on opposite sides). I decided to 'style it out'. Observer comes in at end and says positioning all over the place first half, nearly perfect second half. He didn't comment...

The referee gives a signal at the end of the clip which would make anybody think the game was off. Whether that was it's a no good at the moment signal, or he decided give it extra time after further discussions..

They're human too. With the old 17 penalty scenarios, an FA tutor who was a level 3 at the time got 3 out of 17 at a life seminar test. He must've learnt from that and he's now an FA core coach and one of the most high profile course tutors in the country.

Perhaps should as As not Seen on TV

@ChasObserverRefDeveloper OK

For a goalkeeper to be considered to have released the ball from his hands he first needs to have met the conditions for having control of the ball with his hands. My interpretation of @RefereeX scenario is the ball was never held so the ball can't have been released from the goalkeeper's...

The Scottish version is so much better. Get through 15-20 incidents in an hour Webb acts like a politician

My bad. Replace "possession with control.

There was a change at the top. The previous incumbent very strongly prioritised female referees for female competitions.

If the ball isn't between the hand and a surface it has to be held before the goalkeeper is considered to be in (edit) control. If people think deliberately touching the ball counts as holding the ball then that's there right. I didn't even think think was a debate anymore after the deliberate...

May 2025

Play on. This used to come under deliberate parry. Deliberate parry stopped being classed as possession 20 years ago? It's increasingly being used as a tactic to waste time now the 8 second law is in operation. I did propose the 8 seconds being counted whenever the goalkeeper is in possession...

Don't know what you mean 😮