Search results

And yet in all the trials, which involved hundreds of games across multiple different leagues, there was only instance of a referee not enforcing the rule. So in those games, it would appear compliance was better than 99%.

Except that's surely not a case where the clear and obvious test applies. It's a factual decision, like offside or the point of contact for an offence inside or outside the penalty area. Either the whole of the ball was over the whole of the line or it wasn't. However, the amount of time they...

Seemed harsh to me also. It really did appear to me that the position of his hand/arm was a consequence of, and justifiable by, his body movement for that specific situation, and had not made his body unnaturally bigger.

The law amendment states that, "There is no disciplinary action unless the goalkeeper repeatedly commits the offence." It doesn't specify exactly what constitutes "repeatedly" but if the PL has decided that it should be for the second occurrence, then I guess that's up to them. Based on the...

The law specifies that, "The referee will decide when the goalkeeper has control of the ball and the eight seconds begin ..." Pretty sure that's to allow for exactly the kind of scenario you describe.

I’m dating a bin lady at the moment but I can never remember if I’m supposed to take her out on a Monday or a Wednesday.

The laws (rules, actually for US high school) don't explicitly cover this exact scenario - which is no doubt why @RefIADad is asking the question. For instance, any of the following might apply (or not, as the case may be).

Just to make it slightly easier (though it's always good to know how to look these things up for yourself - and probably helps in retention) here's a link. Law 13 - Free Kicks

I'm not sure there are actually all that many "completely accidental clips of the heels" by defenders running behind attackers. I think there are a lot of defenders that are pretty good at making it look like they've clipped an opponent's heels accidentally, when in fact they knew exactly what...

What you show there is not section 4.3 of the laws.

Talking of bounce-ups, it's interesting to note that in the precursor to the dropped ball, the laws in 1888 actually specified that the ball should be thrown up, not dropped. Excerpt from the 1888 laws below.

It's from the IFAB's Football Rules (sic) website. https://www.footballrules.com/

That's not the applicable part of the law. The goalkeeper was not in the process of releasing the ball (and the player was not trying to prevent him doing so). Try this: I don't think it could - there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the laws that supports such an argument.

Just playing devil's advocate, this was a punch to the back of a player's head, with the ball about two feet away. And when there's hand/arm contact to the head area, I think the threshold for allowable contact is always lower.

I also wondered whether the earlier penalty incident might have been on his mind.

There's clearly a hand in the back - whether it's enough to make him go down is the obvious question. The ref evidently gave it for that, and not for a tangle of legs for instance, seeing as he sent him off. Watching it live, my first instinct was, it's a penalty* although watching it back I...

In a surprising announcement, Head & Shoulders have decided to discontinue their popular anti-dandruff shampoo line. The decision has left many scratching their heads......

There appeared to be some confusion. The commentators were saying it wasn't ruled out for offside while at the same time, the on-screen graphic was saying it was.

Judas Iscariot: "So, are we all still on for the last supper tomorrow?" Jesus: "The LAST supper?" Judas: "Supper, I mean supper".

Tell them that each time they do it, you'll add on twice the time it takes to get the ball back. If they object, you can point out that the allowance for playing time lost is at the referee's discretion. Don't actually do it ('cos that would be wrong) - just tell them you will. :D