Search results

First is to identify they are spectators and not subs or anyone that falls under your authority as the match official. Sounds like you did this. In theory the Home team are responsible but in practicality using the away manager was probably the sensible option. Ultimately, you are powerless to...

I'm not sure that PGMO do think it as I recall, and I've since left twitter so dont think I could get back to it they release a law changes video and it debunked the CORE misinterpretation. I also wrote to IFAB about it, would you believe:

We actually received the same misinterpretation at CORE. I queried it and was shot down. I was pleased to see a PGMO video which supported my interpretation that it still has to be an offence Interestingly I had a comment/question from a manager at the end of the game who asked this very...

Yes. But only if it denies and obvious goal scoring opportunity which in the circumstances you are querying practically cannot happen.

Being in control with the hands or arms is different to touching the ball with the hands or arms. Just as a player (or GK) can have control of the ball with their feet it not always in contact with the ball - this needs to be defined as hands or arms to be clear about when/when not the GK can...

Chas isn't an admin... We aren't going down a road where we argue with and about each other. That's a fast track program to thread closure. If you don't like Rusty's posts it is your decision as to whether you engage with them or not. You may not like his responses, similarly they may not like...

Could well be down to history of l5. There is a bit of a trend now of senior going non-bench side so they don't fall out with benches. The true reason could only be found by asking the ref themselves really

There is actually so much wrong with this I don't even know where to start... What would the red card be for? How can you give handball if the ball is not being touched with the hand? What rule is both ways?

Which may not have been offinabus as iirc he entered the field of play to confront a match official which is a red card irrespective of the language used.

There is a caveat to this in that treatment needs to be completed quickly. This is defined in the practical guidance to match officials as 20-25 seconds from when ready to restart so have to be careful how we frame this error.

One that stands out to me was I was 4th man in. County cup final. Player taking pen took his shin pads out just as he was walking down. Opposition player say " can he do that?" We'd actually had a discussion on her about it near to the time so I knew the answer was no for certain. Let the ref...

By this very same argument playing in a dangerous manner should be a red card offence not a caution. Carries practically the same language (danger/ risk/ injury). Every challenge carries a risk, serious injuries have occurred from fair challenges.

It is dangerous. Dangerous doesnt equal endangering the opponents safety. I've got to add as well that "potentially" endangering safety isn't a red card, it has to actually. It's not encouraged because it's a. Dfk and caution. When we say the blow is glancing, it is essentially another term...

Sanction is only one element.

Law 13.2: "All free kicks are taken from the place where the offence occurred," There are some exception such as idfk to the attacking team in goal area and penalty kicks and such but the general principle is clear. I'd suggest, at grassroots, when you dont have those spare eyes of an AR that...

I think you are over stating it somewhat. It's not a nice challenge I agree but I didn't see any buckling, Dakota foot didn't really press through into the knee, more caught the opponent high without any significant force. . We can agree to disagree but I'm inclined to agree with the outcome...

Assume you mean the Dalot one? It's ends up being a glancing blow to the knee with not a great amount of force which I think saves him. It's not a nice challenge, but think it just below SFP threshold.

@reffl95 knows. To be clear always use the ones in the app, there are often ones knocking around the internet that are no longer relevant/up to date. I'm doing well this year but in previous years I've got the odd 1 or 2 wrong.

Fiddling with DOGSO again. Guess var protocol is reviewing 2nd cautions. Be interesting to see what is classified as an accessory.

I'd guess quite long. The key difference is who the risk belongs to. Shin pads are to protect the wearer. Largely it is that persons appetite for risk and how much protection they want that matters and is confirmed by the clarification. Jewellery impact the safety of not just the wearer but...