Search results

I think it's a great point that the standard of football / expected skill level of the player will impact our view as to Deliberate vs Deflection. In the Premier League, I'd absolutely see this as a Deliberate Play. On a Sunday morning, 100% as a Deflection. So our view on this particular...

I fully respect the thought that he achieved what he intended to achieve. But for me, all that he could possibly achieve was an instinctive ‘getting something on the ball’ rather than a controlled play as defined in law. What makes this look / feel different to many similar situations is that...

*‘Deliberate play’ (excluding deliberate handball) is when a player has control of the ball with the possibility of: passing the ball to a team-mate; gaining possession of the ball; or clearing the ball (e.g. by kicking or heading it) The decision here does NOT come down to whether you think...

So, you’ve given up on the main original idea (caution wrong in law). And now questioning why Everton could not ‘go quick as they wished’. First occasion, 69”. Foul on Grealish results in Liverpool caution, so never going to be truly quick. Everton choose to set up with three players in...

I tend to agree. At lower levels, you put an attacker in motion, 6 yards out and in a clear offside position close to the GK eyeline, together with a clear appeal from the keeper that he’s been impacted and an offside flag would be entirely understandable. That said, a good reminder to all...

Like @JamesL , I see no 'obvious action' to penalise here. The impact in this case will solely have been a momentary loss of sight of the ball for the GK when the shot's path went behind the attacker. As the Law currently stands, this 'Line of Vision' impact could be penalised, but only if you...

As others have said, in purely LOTG technical terms, attempting (and failing) to play a ball can never be deemed “interfering with play”. It can, however, be “interfering with an opponent” but ONLY if the ball is close AND the attempt impacts an opponent. We can debate the niceties of the OP...

At the risk of stating the obvious, It’s correct in law because the foul by the goalkeeper denied the attacker an obvious goal scoring opportunity! The four considerations are simply that .. things that need to be considered to help decide if an OGSO was denied. In this case, Distance and...

🙉 . They are your games to officiate and entirely your choice how you choose to deal with any provocative, unsporting and unnecessarily aggressive comments. Hopefully, based on the input from EVERY other poster on here, you get the point that, if you ignore such comments, you will be making life...

It’s certainly a very marginal decision. You can see the active AR hold his position post goal which suggests he communicated the offside position to the referee. I’m somewhat surprised that, given it’s a subjective decision, VAR didn’t choose to send the referee to the screen to assess.

I’d be wary of using Refchat referees as a representative sample of the the officiating population. In reality, I believe that the majority of U14 referees would completely ignore this comment … wrongly in my opinion. @HonestRef , I understand that the decision might, in the above context, be...

This advice is relatively common, both at higher and lower levels. I find myself violently disagreeing with it on a matter of basic refereeing principle! Outside of keeping players safe, keeping the game fair is job number 1 for officials. I really struggle to see how giving an attacking team...

Or … the ball was moving just wide of the penalty area and it was a slightly heavy touch 😀. In reality, stills are most useful only for evaluating the Distance and Defenders considerations. For Direction and Control, a moving picture is needed. Based on the discussion, would you now at least...

For me, all three of those phrases fall just the acceptable side of the line. None of them clearly advocate anything worse than a Careless Foul

I don’t feel that still image is helpful. Were it not for the foul, my view is that Kane would have actually got to the ball about 5m prior to that position and the defenders would not have been in a position to stop him getting a shot away from just inside the area. Overall, whilst it’s far...

100% agree. Kane would have got to the ball just outside the penalty area and would have been able to get a shot away unimpeded. The angle wouldn’t have been ideal but for a quality international player that’s most definitely an OGSO.

As Rusty says. I’d suggest initially using your voice (loudly) to want them to get going, then add in an (obviously irritated) whistle. If they don’t heed the warnings then it becomes an easily sellable caution.

That makes sense, thank you. And actually, going back to your Post 4 provides another helpful way of often justifying a DB restart .. you simply say that the cautionable offences took place after you had decided to stop play .. which may or may not be slightly before you actually blew the...