Search results

What you show there is not section 4.3 of the laws.

Talking of bounce-ups, it's interesting to note that in the precursor to the dropped ball, the laws in 1888 actually specified that the ball should be thrown up, not dropped. Excerpt from the 1888 laws below.

It's from the IFAB's Football Rules (sic) website. https://www.footballrules.com/

That's not the applicable part of the law. The goalkeeper was not in the process of releasing the ball (and the player was not trying to prevent him doing so). Try this: I don't think it could - there is absolutely nothing anywhere in the laws that supports such an argument.

Just playing devil's advocate, this was a punch to the back of a player's head, with the ball about two feet away. And when there's hand/arm contact to the head area, I think the threshold for allowable contact is always lower.

I also wondered whether the earlier penalty incident might have been on his mind.

There's clearly a hand in the back - whether it's enough to make him go down is the obvious question. The ref evidently gave it for that, and not for a tangle of legs for instance, seeing as he sent him off. Watching it live, my first instinct was, it's a penalty* although watching it back I...

In a surprising announcement, Head & Shoulders have decided to discontinue their popular anti-dandruff shampoo line. The decision has left many scratching their heads......

There appeared to be some confusion. The commentators were saying it wasn't ruled out for offside while at the same time, the on-screen graphic was saying it was.

Judas Iscariot: "So, are we all still on for the last supper tomorrow?" Jesus: "The LAST supper?" Judas: "Supper, I mean supper".

Tell them that each time they do it, you'll add on twice the time it takes to get the ball back. If they object, you can point out that the allowance for playing time lost is at the referee's discretion. Don't actually do it ('cos that would be wrong) - just tell them you will. :D

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.