Search results

Persistent offences I imagine, if there's supposed to be 2 occurences. I'd tend to agree its unlikely to happen more than once.

OK I hadn't noticed that. I doubt anything is being put into Law and this will only be based on the harshest possible interpretation of persistent offences. As a mere mortal not subject to PL directives I think warning at the second, caution at the third is sufficient and can't be argued with.

This isn't cautionable.

The feedback from the trials is pretty encouraging. Apparently it has only had to be penalised four times despite strict enforcement. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwyg7jyp82do

I am sure that if we believe a GK is seriously injured then we will stop play immediately and following treatment restart with a dropped ball to the GK. If we are doubtful that the GK is seriously injured, then they have hold of the ball anyway so there is no harm in letting the 8 seconds lapse...

There is no point only counting from when they get up, because then they will just waste more time on the floor. If an attacker is so close as to prevent a GK releasing then we already have what we need in Law to deal with that.

1. Not deliberate, body hasn't been made bigger, no offence. 2. No goal, this is immediately after the ball touches the attacker's arm. It's about 2 seconds from arm touch to getting the shot away.

RefSix CEO and Co-Founder Hassan Rajwani features in his first Step 6 middle. What sanction are you all giving for this? (starts at 5:44)

I am rather certain that the 12.2 change will be applied consistently. As there is a visual indication of the majority of the count it will be clearer to observers whether the referee is intending to enforce the law and it will be picked up that way. 8 seconds is fairer too as if a GK makes a...

I would have preferred no VAR involvement here. There are shirt pulls and it is not obvious that Young's movement was not impeded at all, so the on-field decision should stand. Once VAR has got involved then the simulation has to be identified and penalised.

C1-AA if this happened in the Premier League...

I take that part from the VAR protocol as just summarising the types of incidents that can be reviewed. It does not override that section in Law 14 or need to restate the full text of it. So VAR can review it, but should only intervene when Law 14 says the player is penalised.

My issue (and this was mentioned during the VAR discussions) is according to Law 14 the encroaching defender who plays the ball can only be penalised if it prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity. In this case the only impact was preventing...

On the Lewis-Skelly incident, the comment from Webb 'there are some considerations that might support a red card, but there's a whole host of others that say it's not quite there' does not quite support his conclusion that VAR should have intervened. Disappointingly this feels very much like...

I'm not sure what you are suggesting about how things should work. A disciplinary process has to assess the evidence properly in order to be fair. It cannot just adopt the referees' version of events, as we are not infallible. Disciplinary panels do tend to give significant weight to referees'...

It is not fair on the opposition either and should be reported to the competition.

If I might turn this into a thread about these incidents more generally... The 3:45 decision for no DOGSO seems not to be explained well with little discussion of the considerations. The ball is not under the attacker's control but the consideration in law is 'likelihood of keeping or gaining...

Some suggestions: Laws of the Game online refresher: https://learn.englandfootball.com/courses/Refereeing/guide-to-the-laws-of-the-game Take appointments from the local youth league and/or women's league so you can referee regularly Ask your RDO if they can assign you a mentor Watch open age...

1. It seems the only way the Commission could justify its decision was to understate the nature of the challenge in its description. 2. Other incidents are not relevant and should not be admissible in these appeals.

Appeals are essential for a just system but I would stop Wrongful Dismissal appeals for matches where VAR is in operation. The opinions of ex-players on whether an 'obvious' refereeing error has occurred cannot reasonably be considered more valid than the referee's, VAR's and AVAR's opinions...