Search results

Agree with everything except your last paragraph. For me, a fully justified red card not being given should never be excused on the basis that it might ruin the game.

The article in the Echo doesn't say when in 2002 he refereed an Everton game but I'd be fairly surprised if it was after declaring his interest in them. It also doesn't say he was never an official for an Everton game after that point, only that he didn't referee a game involving them. As I...

I'm pretty sure the rule was already in place when Chris Foy was refereeing. According to this article in the Liverpool Echo, he only refereed games involving Everton before becoming a supporter. Everton FC fan Chris Foy to referee FA Community Shield

Then I think you may possibly be under a mistaken impression. As far as I'm aware, the only team(s) a PGMOL official may not officiate for are the team(s) they declare an affiliation to (usually only the team they support). Many people are born in a town or city but then their families move...

You need to be careful with the law definitions here or you risk getting confused and making a decision based on a mistaken interpretation of the offside law. The player can't be "interfering with play at this stage" because he hasn't touched the ball.

Can't tell from that image whether it's an earring or not.

Yes, sorry, that's correct. But my main point was and is, that we can't assume that only a short and cursory check was done, when play is continuing after any given incident.

Well, not necessarily. If it's not over and they still want to continue checking, that's when they world ask the referee to hold the restart until the check is complete. The thing is, play could easily continue for several minutes with a background check still going on and we would be none the...

The check goes on in the background, and unless we're privy to the VAR discussions (which we're not) we don't know how long it lasted. Could have been 30 seconds, could have been five minutes.

And here's a video of that incident.

Clearly the the player in an offside position (PIOP) did not interfere with play but it's not entirely clear to me whether they might have interfered with an opponent. It sounds like they probably didn't, but there's just not enough detail in your description to be completely sure. For...

Correct - and for those interested in the history of this, it actually came about in two stages. First of all, in 1996 it changed from no going back whatsoever, to the referee being allowed to go back and penalise the original offence if the advantage did not develop, "at that time." However...

Actually, to be totally accurate it was in 1992 that it changed. As stated, the law change was intended to avoid timewasting.

Can you point out where they say that?

I tried calling the tinnitus helpline today, but to no avail. It just kept ringing.

I don't see that it's clear that the defender has played the ball at all. Maybe a slight touch but even that's not obvious to me. And the attacker hasn't fallen over the defender's legs, based on anything I can see - he's been taken out at the ankle, from behind, by a reckless challenge.

Yeah, me too. What offence is there here, that could lead to an IFK outside the penalty area?

The law doesn't say it has to be an attempt to play the ball to avoid the red card. It can also just be a challenge for the ball, which I think this was. The law wording is: (Emphasis mine).

Sure as heck looked like a penalty to me. He may have got a touch on the ball (though it's not even clear to me that he did) but even if he did, he's taken the man as well.