Search results

What's to report? If the OP thought the team was deliberately conceding goals for some competition reason, or in protest at the referee, then yes. But a team gave up and stopped caring? Nothing for the OP to do here.

I'm confused...where's the controversy? Player was fouled, you played advantage, quite some time later the ball was lost and the player that lost it then pushed the defender....what have I missed here? Why are they whinging that you played advantage? Because it seems very straightforward to...

That's a ridiculous argument....'could cover the eyes and become a danger'......ahh, the stuff that some instructors come up with!!

That seems like a big leap for me. There's a long way to go from 'uncomfortable' to 'unsafe'. Heck, I've worn a beanie before playing in a tournament in a different state, as have a lot of players. Wasn't even close to unsafe, but it was pretty uncomfortable. I mean, we may as well ban...

That's a disgusting dive and I'm appalled that the VAR didn't overturn it. But it's because there's this stupid notion that it can't be considered a dive if there's contact. Like hell it can't. If there's minimal contact on the toe, he falls over like his legs have been swept from under...

The good thing about the stupid "professional appearance" clause is its highly subjective. So use it to allow a hat, not disallow unless there's good reason. Pompom on top? I'd be disallowing it. Aside from that, it if meets criteria, who cares? Why are referees on here saying "if i don't think...

It's worryingly that the LOTG very clearly says 'head coverings can be worn' and so many posters on here are saying 'no they can't'

It's the difference between bending the law, and breaking it entirely

:rolleyes::wall:

I disagree. You can't possibly say there was none, but you can say 'oh, I thought it was this amount'. I see nothing sensible in completely ignoring the law when it's very obvious there's stoppage time.

Would it have killed the referee to play a minute? Just seems to be a lot more defensible saying you underestimated it, rather than saying you just couldn't be bothered applying the law at all.

Now you're being ridiculous. When 2 defenders pass the ball between themselves there isn't a 20 second pause at each instance where the player can't be challenged. Did I actually have to spell out that key difference or are you just being facetious? If it's as simply as being up to the...

Why does a Sunday league match need to worry about professional appearance? Let's apply a bit of common sense here - if a player wants to wear a hat, so what? Seems like you mob are looking for problems....

to be fair, that just completely agrees with the fan complaint of referees manipulating stoppage time to suit a game situation. And we do manipulate stoppage time to suit ourselves. The whole idea of 'neutral territory' is just that. My preference would typically be to apply something when you...

....do they? I challenge you to go and find that passage

From 30 yards away: "Don't even think about trying that again!"

This is clearly circumvention.... Are people seriously claiming it isn't? Warn once, then card. Some people are getting way, way too hung up on the word 'trick' and trying to find hidden meanings that aren't there.

Not really sure that it's even less consistent at this point :P I mean, clearly we may as well delete the 'players must remain outside the PA' law, along with the 6 second and OFFINABUS laws.

Funny, usually people on here try to argue 'didn't affect the kick, so what?' Football is becoming a farce with stuff like this. It's an easy law to enforce. Why bother even having laws?

Well this is exactly the problem. Why do we, as referees, over complicate things? The LOTG says 6 seconds. Why do we make it out to be any more complex than that? "Understand the intent" is often just used as a euphemism for '"ignore". And a poor euphemism. As you say, the intent of the...