Search results

Assuming you’re referring to the challenge in the 115th minute, it’s only reckless for me. Yes, the player lunges in from the side, however he makes contact with the top of his boot to the side of the boot of the opponent. The opponent’s safety is not endangered and the force used is arguably...

For the first, DOGSO DFK is obviously correct. I agree the more interesting question is whether to downgrade if inside. I’m pretty sure it should be a downgrade. It’s part of a challenge for the ball. It needs to be very blatant to be giving PK & RC. Fo the second, I think the right decision...

Yes, there’s some speed in the challenge and contact with the studs to the ankle. However, the foot is not planted and the force is not particularly high. I reckon yellow (which is unusual for me). On a side note, the referee impressed me in the highlights I’ve seen. He seems more confident than...

Well… hope the Socceroos get out of their group else there aren’t going to be any Australians represented in the knockout rounds.

I’m fine with no VAR intervention but I think the preferred outcome should be red card. With studs flush to the back of the Achilles, little force is needed to endanger the safety of the opponent. Kinda surprised people are thinking yellow. Those I’ve spoken to irl think red.

Anyone thinking red for the challenge on Vini? The angle from behind showing contact with the studs to the shin has me thinking SFP. None of the players seem to want a send-off though, so maybe I’m totally off on this one?

Not sure you can support a yellow for 2. It’s a deliberate strike with the hand/arm to the head/neck so I feel you’re kinda forced into nothing (‘negligible force’) or red for anything else.

First is clearly correct. The defender has the responsibility to not make contact with the attacker. Second is VC. Appreciate there’s not a huge amount of force in it but we can’t be having players whacking each other in the head. Third is DOGSO. A yellow is probably supportable but red is...

Clearly red. Not sure what the referees thought process was but if he’s sure of his decision, there’s no reason to wait to give the sanction. Had he sent-off (or even cautioned) the player immediately, there’s would’ve been no reaction. If you need to buy yourself thinking time or talk to the...

Doesn’t matter. If the referee is incapacitated, play may continue under the supervision of the other match officials until the ball goes out of play.

I’m not even sure how you justify a red card in Law for this. No hint of excessive force or deliberate violence.

It says or. Even if it didn’t, it would still work in my opinion. Pulling someone’s hair is just so far outside of anything expected in a game of football.

I think we’ve got hung up on the excessive force part of VC. Brutality is also there which literally includes “deliberately violent” in its definition. A deliberate hair pull could certainly fall under that. This was deliberate for me (I’m kind of envious of how Pollyannaish those who think it...

I’ve just realised that “or by touching it with any part of the hands or arms, except if the ball rebounds from the goalkeeper or the goalkeeper has made a save” (which was in the 2024/25 LOTG) appears to have been removed from the definition of the goalkeeper having control of the ball with the...

You were right for the reason you stated. Edit: grammar

Necessary force can’t be the actual minimum amount of force else all contact that isn’t a challenge for the ball is a red card.

Agree that the threshold for excessive is lower against a match official but it’s not zero. Whilst brutality isn’t required for VC, it can be a guide for what kind and severity of actions warrant the sanction. Was the push savage, ruthless or deliberately violent? No. I’ve had players push me...

I’m happy with yellow. He’s pushing him out of the way to take the free kick quickly.

There’s two definitions of includes in English; “for example” and “has as one of its features”. In isolation, both work here. IFAB has clarified they mean “for example”. Therefore, we apply the Law that way. The only case when we should reject IFAB rulings is when there is no interpretation...

The 4th criteria isn’t required. This Q&A is wrong btw. If the defender is cautioned for a reckless challenge or sent-off for using excessive force, the restart is a direct free kick.