Search results

This. Absolutely and definitively this.

I think the phrase, "The referee will decide when the goalkeeper has control of the ball ..." is sufficient clarification and I'm pretty sure it was put in there quite deliberately to allow the referee some discretion here.

I'm not aware of anything suggesting a referee should wait for a keeper to get to their feet, no matter how long they stay down. The wording of the law certainly doesn't state that. Maybe, if the goalie "bounces" back up more or less straight away, the ref might allow for that - but not if they...

Again, we can't tell from that video what (if any) tolerance there was.

OK, but it was only 14 seconds by the count some unknown individual has put on a TikTok video. For instance, the timer on the video starts at the exact millisecond the keeper first touches the ball. It's not supposed to start until the ref decides the keeper has the ball under control. So we...

I haven't watched any of the games in the Club World Cup so far (not sure I will, either) but are there any trends emerging as regards the goalkeepers and referees behaviour related to the new 8 second rule? Are keepers releasing the ball quicker, have any referees given corners yet, etc? I see...

I'm not sure I'm trying to make a point. I'm just stating facts as to what happened in the trials. I'm not drawing any conclusions or making any prognostications based on that. Or perhaps, as I think a bit more about it, the main point I'm tending towards is simply that perhaps we shouldn't...

And yet in all the trials, which involved hundreds of games across multiple different leagues, there was only instance of a referee not enforcing the rule. So in those games, it would appear compliance was better than 99%.

Except that's surely not a case where the clear and obvious test applies. It's a factual decision, like offside or the point of contact for an offence inside or outside the penalty area. Either the whole of the ball was over the whole of the line or it wasn't. However, the amount of time they...

Seemed harsh to me also. It really did appear to me that the position of his hand/arm was a consequence of, and justifiable by, his body movement for that specific situation, and had not made his body unnaturally bigger.

The law amendment states that, "There is no disciplinary action unless the goalkeeper repeatedly commits the offence." It doesn't specify exactly what constitutes "repeatedly" but if the PL has decided that it should be for the second occurrence, then I guess that's up to them. Based on the...

The law specifies that, "The referee will decide when the goalkeeper has control of the ball and the eight seconds begin ..." Pretty sure that's to allow for exactly the kind of scenario you describe.

I’m dating a bin lady at the moment but I can never remember if I’m supposed to take her out on a Monday or a Wednesday.

The laws (rules, actually for US high school) don't explicitly cover this exact scenario - which is no doubt why @RefIADad is asking the question. For instance, any of the following might apply (or not, as the case may be).

Just to make it slightly easier (though it's always good to know how to look these things up for yourself - and probably helps in retention) here's a link. Law 13 - Free Kicks

I'm not sure there are actually all that many "completely accidental clips of the heels" by defenders running behind attackers. I think there are a lot of defenders that are pretty good at making it look like they've clipped an opponent's heels accidentally, when in fact they knew exactly what...

What you show there is not section 4.3 of the laws.

Talking of bounce-ups, it's interesting to note that in the precursor to the dropped ball, the laws in 1888 actually specified that the ball should be thrown up, not dropped. Excerpt from the 1888 laws below.

It's from the IFAB's Football Rules (sic) website. https://www.footballrules.com/

That's not the applicable part of the law. The goalkeeper was not in the process of releasing the ball (and the player was not trying to prevent him doing so). Try this: I don't think it could - there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the laws that supports such an argument.