Search results

Much more likely to be simply an error (and a big one at that) given it was a far side decision.

To clarify I do mean any goal/no goal decision. Hence why West Ham's would still be disallowed. The most egregious incidents that led to calls for video review were for goals being wrongly awarded or not awarded.

A while ago we had an 'honest discussion about VAR' thread and I stand by my suggestion to limit what is reviewable. It would be better to only use VAR for: Goal/no goal Violent conduct Biting or spitting Penalty/no penalty all factual decisions (e.g. position of offence) and subjective...

If a player holds their arms across their own chest in an X shape that is obviously 'not justifiable by their movement' but it would be absurd to claim that would mean they had made their body 'unnaturally bigger' if the ball hit an arm. I think it is self-explanatory that making the body bigger...

It is not likely to be a successful appeal for Quorn as it can only go in their favour if 'no reasonable body could have come to this decision'. But they are likely to know that and it can be more about making their objection clear.

Here's the incident (4:43): Ball definitely hits the defender's arm: I agree that the defender's body is not being made unnaturally bigger because the ball is going to hit his head anyway. I am also not seeing a deliberate action by the defender leading to the contact. If you watch the close...

As he is a match official he will probably receive a time-based suspension from all football. This could make it harder to achieve promotion criteria. Apart from that I'm not aware of anything that would affect promotions from 7-5. For 5-4 it could affect his promotion more significantly as the...

My only problem with this is that the corner should never have been allowed to be taken with the amount of holding going on. PGMO has really made a problem for itself in this incident with its approach to holding.

It was their guidance to Level 4+ refs. My county adopted the same approach.

The FA's guidance that the Captain's Only Protocol should not use a visible signal has made it really impractical. By the time you've told everyone you'd already be surrounded.

The finger movement as they brush the ball is the conclusive evidence. The change in ball trajectory further supports. This is one of the rare occasions when I think VAR would have benefited from taking a bit more time and examining more angles. Some of the earlier posts in this thread discuss...

Are they perhaps suggesting that the FK offence is PIADM (i.e. an opponent can't reasonably challenge during these kinds of acrobatics for fear of injuring one of the attackers).

I think I agree with pretty much everything Collum has to say except the first one being a C&O error, I think it is a debatable call and there seems to be an over-emphasis on impact.

As a first season L4 I'm pleased they've offered the earlier opportunity to specialise. I have been thinking for a while about going SAR because I feel it is where I perform most consistently well, and gives the better opportunity for progression as an AR with operating on the dugout side more...

You probably have a right to access it under GDPR as it is personal information about you. If the individual marks have been kept then you may have a right to those too.

Nationality is part of the 'race' protected characteristics (though this would also come under ethnicity and national origin). Insulting, offensive or abusive language is a red card so probably should be the result as it is a potentially aggravated offence, and the anti discrimination protocol...

I hope PGMO keeps up its stringent approach to this, I'm confident that those few players still tempted to pull hair will soon get the message and this may then give the authorities some food for thought about how to address the more prevalent problem behaviours affecting our game.

It's there in 12.3.

Better clip here skip to 3:14 https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/c62j0yqzn8vo Martinez goes for it twice so it's definitely intentional and it is not negligible force.

I already asked IFAB. Their answer was it was redundant text so taken out. So we can take from that there is no practical change to how these situations should be refereed.