Search results

I think @Ryanj91 meant would have been the first time VAR got involved for mistaken identity in the prem (if they did).

As a maths geek I think you were correct originally in that ‘average’ in every day life most commonly means ‘mean’ (or at least it does to me) but the mean, median and mode are all averages!

This isn't true, because MOAS is always unavailable shortly after midnight 😁

I'm one of the worlds worst for looking at club marks, but I do agree... they don't have a lot of value. I'd say less than 50% mark fairly. Some mark emotionally, some will always mark high and some will always mark low.

It depends on what level you're at. If you're a level 4, I believe it's from the day 11 days after the date of the game. If you're at level 3 or above you can see the mark as soon as it's submitted (on the overall review tab), although you still can't see the report until that date.

I might be in the minority ere but I'm perfectly happy with Gabriel not being sent off for the kick in the face. Had there been a lot more force or it been with studs leading rather than the top of the foot, then absolutely a red, but it was a genuine attempt for the ball (albeit a silly one)...

@Big Cat to clarify, when I said ‘for anyone’ I didn’t mean if an entirely different player receives treatment for an unrelated issue at the same time, but I think you know what I meant

Yeah I’ve seen that. What I’m saying is if some part of the body is touching the ground, but there is a foot that isn’t, the wording implies the foot that isn’t could still be considered, because of the use of OR.

There is a way of interpreting that which suggests he is wrong too. Feet OR any body part touching the ground could imply that the feet don’t need to be touching the ground to be considered

Afraid not. If the player injured goes off, then there’s no 10 second rule and no minute off after treatment for anyone.

Yeah it’s why I can’t see the 10 second rule really working long term. Any team slowing the game down with a lead will suddenly have an injury to everyone coming off. Surprised it hasn’t happened more so far!

Agreed... so the new player is a 'player temporarily off the field of play'... no?

Whatever your stance on the 2 game ban is, this is a totally different scenario.

Not a new concept... sin binned players are players but not allowed on the pitch. They can't take throw ins.

I would imagine that's because at 60 + most peoples bodies can no longer cope with the physical demands of the game, but that doesn't mean that nobodies can. I personally would be delighted if I'm half as fit as I am now when I'm 60.

Having read these comments, I did realise that it was Q3 with the slightly rogue answer. Technically neither of the options are correct, because the treatment could 3 minutes if it took 2 mins 40 secs for everyone else to be ready to restart, so I gathered it was likely to be that.

The UK is firmly of the opinion (correctly IMO) that as the size of someone’s shin guards isn’t a danger to anyone else, it should be the concern of the wearer alone (or their parents) and as such the referee’s only responsibility is as per the laws of the game, that they are wearing some sort...

Yes, it does.

I presume this Q&A is a generalisation of the new law that jewellery may be securely and safely covered rather than enforcing removal... but in this country at least that's not the case and in most countries I'd suggest earrings can't be safely covered.

I think this is similar morally to the handball not given between Man Utd and Nottm Forest after a rejected monitor review by Graham Salisbury. It's not handball by a literal interpretation of the law, but most of the game expects handball here. Edit to add: I've voted no, for clarity.