Search results

Sure. So if you're asked that question, just say, "Yes, they can."

OK, so answer me this question. What do you think is the reasoning behind the player's choice of going down onto his knees to play it to the keeper, instead of just kicking it to him, which would surely have been a much simpler action to perform?

I'm pretty sure the original law makers didn't think in those terms. In the original laws of 1863, anyone who was in front of the ball was in offside position. (As alluded to by @socal lurker that changed to needing only three defenders fairly early on, in 1865). The phrase "gaining an...

You're completely right that it's badly written and ultimately self-contradictory. You might want to send it in to the IFAB for them to consider rewriting this section.

Law 12 says a warning should normally be sufficient:

We actually had a discussion about this back in 2017. The consensus back then seemed to be that advantage could not be applied to an incorrectly taken throw-in. Admittedly, I was one of the ones saying it was not allowed but I was far from alone...

As @Goldfish points out, it sounds like it was a reckless challenge anyway.

No, that's not what VAR is there to do. As laid out in the protocol, VAR is there to assist the referee only in the event of a clear and obvious error or serious missed incident in relation to 4 clearly-defined, key match-changing scenarios. It's not there to try to avoid talking points.

Well, those are the only three listed in the law. Penalty kicks are not exempted, according to the law (although I understand your point).

Who told you that? Not the instructor on your course, I hope.

Your understanding (and your explanations) are 100% correct.

What caution code is used for the caution given to a goalkeeper for a second offence during KFTPM? Wouldn't it be the same? I don't know the answer as I had already retired well before this provision was adopted.

OK then, my apologies. I'm my defence, I would just say that that wasn't immediately apparent from the contents of the post. At the time I read it, it already had a link to the announcement from the IFAB that listed the actual, approved changes - unless that was added later?

These are not proposed changes, these are confirmed amendments that will take effect as of July 1 this year. As stated in the IFAB announcement: Again, these are approved changes, not proposals. The change in AR positioning is listed in a section of the announcement that starts by saying:

There's nothing I've seen that explains the reason for the two types of free kick, there's just a timeline of when they were introduced, as given above. But I would imagine there's an element of getting the punishment to fit the crime.

Yes, in fact originally all free kicks were indirect. The first mention of free kicks was in 1872, for handling offences. The law stated that a goal could not be scored from such a free kick. In 1874, free kicks were added for offside, tripping, hacking, holding and pushing (all still indirect)...

Perhaps because the very first line of Law 11 says, "It is not an offence to be in an offside position." But if you mean that it has to be an offside offence because the player in an offside position has clearly challenged an opponent for the ball (thereby committing an offside offence) before...

For the past 30 years I've received a Valentine's day card from the same secret admirer. So I was pretty upset when I didn't get one this year. First my granny dies and now this.

I think some of this is arguably covered under the provisions of Law 6. This law states that the VAR and AVAR, "assist the referee in controlling the match in accordance with the Laws of the Game and the VAR protocol." So that indicates they have a general duty to assist, along with specific...

That really doesn't work, though. You're allowing one team to dictate to the other team, something that they're not entitled to dictate. The team that wins the toss is given a choice of either kicking off or deciding which goal to attack in the first half. There's nothing in the laws that says...