Search results

No, it doesn't come down to whether contact with the ball is made first. It comes down to whether the referee judges that the trip, which you stipulate to, was careless (I think we can discount reckless or excessive force). Getting the ball first but carelessly tripping the player as well, is...

They don't - in fact they specifically mention them among the materials that are allowed - again with the proviso that they have not become dangerous.

Not really sure what you're trying to say here but let's just be clear - there is no prohibition in the laws on metal studs at grassroots or any other level and the only issue regarding metal studs (or any kind of studs) is whether they are dangerous. And for me, the only surface on which you...

With the greatest of respect, I think you need to be a tad more careful in issuing definitive proclamations on matters of law, in case they are either mistaken or (as here) not universally applicable. In addition, perhaps you might want to think about couching the things you state in somewhat...

What do you mean by "no metal studs"? Do you mean only on artificial turf? As others have mentioned, it may be an issue for the venue administrators and it's debatable whether it's up to the referee to enforce it but metal studs are most definitely not prohibited by the Laws of the Game. In...

In terms of the Laws of the Game, a player can wear any type of boots so long as they're not dangerous. Some artificial turf venues do have their own regulations about what kind of footwear players can or can't use but that's up to the venue, it's not part of the laws.

A fly kick is as described by @one. We might understand what 'punt' means in this context but in terms of soccer it's not the most commonly used term here. Perhaps it is for people from the US? In the UK, I would say 'punt' is more often used to designate a kind of boat.

Yes, it does. See the following extract from the VAR section of the laws.

I don't believe Nunez is even visible on that image. As @ladbroke8745 alludes to, the Liverpool players seen there are defenders.

Although not an ideal angle either, I think the still below gives us enough information to draw a conclusion. This is the moment the ball hits Trossard's knee and given where his foot is, and what we know about human anatomy I think it's a fairly safe bet that the ball would not have been...

Having now watched a video of the game, I agree with the referee at the time (and the VAR, who didn't call for a review) that there's no handball offence here. Reflex protective action because of a ball hit at him hard, from extremely close range.

It takes five minutes to walk to my local pub and twenty five to walk back. That’s staggering.

The ball did not come to him from a cross. For what it's worth, it came at him from a clearance by a team mate at very close range (the one you can see in the first image, closest to Reitz and more or less on the ground).

Looked like it fully met the definition of reckless to me. For me, the player has "act[ed] with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent." As @RefereeX points out, if the opponent doesn't take evasive action, he gets clattered - and he was sent tumbling even so.

Also, and as I believe has been mentioned in previous discussions on this topic, what about situations such as when the referee drops the whistle, the whistle itself malfunctions or the referee becomes incapacitated? Is play then deemed to continue (for what in some of those scenarios, could be...

That's not quite what the law says - and I think deliberately so. I reckon that it's precisely because the definition of "natural" or "unnatural" position is so vague and subjective that they changed it to a "position [that] is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement...

Highly debatable. That doesn't make it a handball offence. Utterly irrelevant in law.

It's not a cautionable offence to refuse to leave the field entirely. However if you do leave but in doing so, take too much time about it (including not leaving by the nearest point) then as mentioned above, you should be cautioned for delaying the restart.

I'm not 100% sure (because the camera was zoomed in on him and I couldn't see the field markings) but given how long he seemed to keep walking before he left the field and knowing how wide a football pitch is, I suspect he did not leave the field, "by the nearest point on the boundary line," as...

Violent Conduct - excessive force or brutality or non-negligible face/head contact with hand/arm. The law is not asking us to decide whether it's closer to brutality or negligible, it's asking us to penalise as VC either when there's brutality or when there's any contact to the head or face...