Search results

Yes, it does. See the following extract from the VAR section of the laws.

I don't believe Nunez is even visible on that image. As @ladbroke8745 alludes to, the Liverpool players seen there are defenders.

Although not an ideal angle either, I think the still below gives us enough information to draw a conclusion. This is the moment the ball hits Trossard's knee and given where his foot is, and what we know about human anatomy I think it's a fairly safe bet that the ball would not have been...

Having now watched a video of the game, I agree with the referee at the time (and the VAR, who didn't call for a review) that there's no handball offence here. Reflex protective action because of a ball hit at him hard, from extremely close range.

It takes five minutes to walk to my local pub and twenty five to walk back. That’s staggering.

The ball did not come to him from a cross. For what it's worth, it came at him from a clearance by a team mate at very close range (the one you can see in the first image, closest to Reitz and more or less on the ground).

Looked like it fully met the definition of reckless to me. For me, the player has "act[ed] with disregard to the danger to, or consequences for, an opponent." As @RefereeX points out, if the opponent doesn't take evasive action, he gets clattered - and he was sent tumbling even so.

Also, and as I believe has been mentioned in previous discussions on this topic, what about situations such as when the referee drops the whistle, the whistle itself malfunctions or the referee becomes incapacitated? Is play then deemed to continue (for what in some of those scenarios, could be...

That's not quite what the law says - and I think deliberately so. I reckon that it's precisely because the definition of "natural" or "unnatural" position is so vague and subjective that they changed it to a "position [that] is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement...

Highly debatable. That doesn't make it a handball offence. Utterly irrelevant in law.

It's not a cautionable offence to refuse to leave the field entirely. However if you do leave but in doing so, take too much time about it (including not leaving by the nearest point) then as mentioned above, you should be cautioned for delaying the restart.

I'm not 100% sure (because the camera was zoomed in on him and I couldn't see the field markings) but given how long he seemed to keep walking before he left the field and knowing how wide a football pitch is, I suspect he did not leave the field, "by the nearest point on the boundary line," as...

Violent Conduct - excessive force or brutality or non-negligible face/head contact with hand/arm. The law is not asking us to decide whether it's closer to brutality or negligible, it's asking us to penalise as VC either when there's brutality or when there's any contact to the head or face...

You're not sure that smashing someone in the face falls under violent conduct? Please explain.

Not when it's an attacking free kick on the goal area line you shouldn't. That would mean making some of the defenders stand four yards behind the goal line.

OK, so that's obviously a good policy when talking about AYSO games but it does not say that in USSF games overall the referee is responsible for spectator behaviour - or even in youth games really, except insofar as the referee can ask for an abusive parent to be dealt with by others.

It's not DOGSO, since the goal was in fact scored. Also, it does matter if the referee judges it not to be on purpose, because then you have to decide if the player has made their body unnaturally bigger or not. If it wasn't deliberate and the player hasn't made their body unnaturally bigger...

Do you have the quote from the USSF rulebook? I'd be interested to see exactly what it says.

He did - you can see he starts moving the whistle up to his mouth before the ball is kicked. He may even have whistled before the kick, though I'm not entirely sure about that.

Couple of things. Firstly, as @JamesL says, the law talks about the hand/arm making the body unnaturally bigger rather than it being in an unnatural position, and secondly there is no reference any more to any specific hand/arm positions in the law. All it says is that: