Search results

Pretty sure there would be provision for a ban, if they so chose, although I think it's fairly clear they won't. World Cup 2026 regulations, Section 34.3 prohibits any political slogans being displayed by players. And while Article 34.3 doesn't list any specific punishment, Article 7 makes a...

OK, but it's never been used in a World Cup finals competition before and as others have said, the optics are just terrible. The fact that, as reported by the New York Times, Trump personally called Infantino three times on Balogun's behalf, before the decision to use article 27 was made, just...

Not really. On this subject, the protocol states: It doesn't say the referee must initiate a review when the VAR recommends it, only that they can. So it's not mandatory (although I'll admit it is expected, based on everything we know).

For me, the main problem with this (and many other VAR OFR's we see) is that they seem to be going against the VAR protocol's stipulations for the use of slow motion. This is what it says. "The VAR can ‘check’ the footage in normal speed and/or in slow motion but, in general, slow motion...

When he says, "Has it ever happened before!?" I think he's referring to this. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2026/mar/17/senegal-stripped-of-africa-cup-of-nations-title-over-protest-in-chaotic-final

If you're talking about Emma Hayes, she's on ITV, not BBC.

If you're talking about the new 'five second rule', for throw-ins, it's not in the form of a fixed, automatic five second time limit. The referee should only start a five second countdown if and when they decide that the thrower is unfairly delaying the restart. It doesn't apply to every...

According sportingnews.com: "The word 'i' means "and" in the local languages -- Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian. So the BiH abbreviation is simply the three words in their language, Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Bosnia i Herzegovina. It's that simple."...

The law doesn't say that players only have five seconds to take a throw-in. It says the referee can start a five second count down if they decide that a player is unfairly delaying the taking of a throw-in.

I just spent a few days making a model of Mount Everest. A friend asked, "Is it to scale?" I said, "No, just to look at".

That's not the angle that shows why he was offside - which if you were watching the BBC coverage (as it seems you were) I suspect you know already. Immediately before showing that image, they showed this one, which clearly demonstrates the reason for the decision.

It did say 7 eventually but initially, just as the clock reached 90 minutes, it said 5. After the game restarted, it changed to 7, as you show above. However before the game ended, it switched back again to 5. So it looks like there was some kind of communications mix up over what the...

Oh, I don't know. The stamp by Matt Crooks onto the top of Alan Browne's foot was probably worth a caution and was (according to the commentators on the stream I watched) even being looked at for a potential red card offence, by VAR. (VAR thought it wasn't worth an on field review obviously...

This scenario is covered in the laws of the game. In the section entitled, "Guidelines for Match Officials," you will find the following illustration and explanatory text. I'm not sure what you mean by, "The law just says offside is then called." I don't see anything to that effect, either...

In this case, the referee was neither on the floor nor tangled up and unable to make a decision. There was no valid reason to stop play, as far as I can tell.

The referee just collided with a Southampton player and stopped play when the ball was running through for a promising Middlesbrough attack. Surely that's against the laws of the game. It's only a dropped ball if the referee makes contact with the ball - not a player?

Pretty sure that's referring to the time in the past when that was true. Up till 1979, any touch by a defender meant a player in an offside position was "played on" by that touch and not penalised for offside. The wording of the law in the years up to that point stated:

Quite. The following would seem applicable.

You're not going wrong, they are. The wording of Law 13 (which you have correctly quoted) is clear and unambiguous on this.

No, it's not. As the glossary entry posted by @one states, playing the ball means making contact with it. There's also this from the "Guidelines for Match Officials" section.