Search results

I did the sensible thing too, eventually - but only after first panicking and sending an email using the link on the screen that told me my account was suspended.

I'm not convinced. I think it's much more difficult to fake clearly attempting to kick the ball way upfield but then failing in a manner that still keeps it close enough to be able to pick it up, than it is to simply mis-control it and keep it close. But in any event, yes, the referee has to...

Agreed.

Indeed, and just to expand on that further, it's perhaps instructive to look at the explanation the IFAB gave when introducing this change: If any attempt to touch the ball with the feet were enough to overcome the prohibition on subsequent handling, keepers would simply "mis-control" the ball...

Sorry, overlapping responses I hadn't seen your second post before I composed and then posted my last effort. In terms of why a keeper is not sanctioned for what might otherwise be seen as a SPA or DOGSO offence, while the IFAB has not given a specific explanation for it, I've always thought it...

The way the IFAB explained this apparent discrepancy, when they brought it in, was that while a goalkeeper should not be sanctioned for an illegal handling offence, in the case of a second touch offence, it isn't actually a handling offence any more. Their exact wording was as follows: Some...

I didn't think he meant that either - in saying he would penalise it, I was referring to the fact that that he implied he would prefer the law to be that way.

So you're basically saying you would penalise a player simply for being in an offside position and literally taking no other action - including "not making an effort to get back onside"? How would you square that with the first line of Law 11?

The OP says, "The ball was then taken by the striker who was through on goal and scored." There's only one way to restart play after a goal is scored as far as I'm aware - a kick-off.

Sure. So if you're asked that question, just say, "Yes, they can."

OK, so answer me this question. What do you think is the reasoning behind the player's choice of going down onto his knees to play it to the keeper, instead of just kicking it to him, which would surely have been a much simpler action to perform?

I'm pretty sure the original law makers didn't think in those terms. In the original laws of 1863, anyone who was in front of the ball was in offside position. (As alluded to by @socal lurker that changed to needing only three defenders fairly early on, in 1865). The phrase "gaining an...

You're completely right that it's badly written and ultimately self-contradictory. You might want to send it in to the IFAB for them to consider rewriting this section.

Law 12 says a warning should normally be sufficient:

We actually had a discussion about this back in 2017. The consensus back then seemed to be that advantage could not be applied to an incorrectly taken throw-in. Admittedly, I was one of the ones saying it was not allowed but I was far from alone...

As @Goldfish points out, it sounds like it was a reckless challenge anyway.

No, that's not what VAR is there to do. As laid out in the protocol, VAR is there to assist the referee only in the event of a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident in relation to 4 clearly-defined, key match-changing scenarios. It's not there to try to avoid talking points.

Well, those are the only three listed in the law. Penalty kicks are not exempted, according to the law (although I understand your point).

Who told you that? Not the instructor on your course, I hope.

Your understanding (and your explanations) are 100% correct.