Search results

It doesn't need to be a certain goal to be DOGSO. It’s one on one with the GK and maybe not the best angle (only because the attacker was trying to avoid an incoming foul tackle) but are we really calculating whether the GK saves the obvious incoming shot?

VAR thought it a C&O error. Ref Thomas Bramall (having missed the foul entirely) gave the FK after OFR but "because the player knocks it to the right side of the goal, the final decision is direct free-kick and a yellow card to No.6." 1.04.30 start of second half...

Only just seen this. Terry didn't care if the ball hit his arms. He made some cracking saves any GK would be proud of.

I did. Injuries plus subs 5 mins plus maybe a minute for goal celeb, and max 2 mins for each VAR. A generous 10. At least he didn't add on for further delays in added time!

It's the old interpretation. Apart from the USSF (and Keith Hackett) I don't think the interpretation that the GK could use his hands outside the PA was ever enshrined by IFAB. I reckon it was always a disputed interpretation.

How long can you remember? In 2003 the USSF "changed its mind" as Jim Allen (who hosted their Ask the Ref webpage) told me at the time (from the "traditional" view to where the GK could handle the ball outside the PA if the ball was "in" the PA (extrapolating from ball in and out of play *)...

It was the USSF that invented the nonsense, only recently clarified, that the GK could handle the ball if the ball was "in" the PA (i.e. even just overhanging the edge of the PA). It's taken decades to get back to the original and obvious meaning that the GK cannot touch the ball if his hand is...

Most throw-ins are with the ball already in the FoP as it leaves the thrower's hands. Re the original post, just why? The FK has been given to penalise the opponent and this could reverse the intention. Just imagine:: FK given for a sending off offence. Player ready to take FK, ref points to...

Not sure where 12 minutes added time came from in the Manchester City v Ipswich game but part was from two VAR reviews. One was stopping play for an OFR a while after the incident. Time should be added on for reviews but is there anything explicit in the laws to make it clear that that means...

IIRC, the CREF wording was in use before someone had the idea of linking them to the disciplinary sanctions. Careless is daft because it implies you can legitimately commit a foul carefully, and reckless does sound worse than excessive force which frankly is a meaningless phrase, equating to...

Good luck at the weekend with a lot of primary action petulant kicking going on.

Uproar from whom?

If he "couldn't get to it anyway" it can't have been "close", can it? If the ball is not close, impact on opponent is not relevant at all. An "instinctive reactionary movement as the ball goes past an attacker" (who may or may not have been close to the ball) sounds quite deniable about any...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/videos/c5yvdnpdvg1o

Sky were awful (during and after). MotD commentator, presumably listening to the feed, says they established that Haaland was onside and the issue was Fernandez "who is offside and does go for it - but he's nowhere near it". So how close is "close"? Merely attempting to play the ball is not...

I think I'm saying I'm not that bothered.

If Enzo was right there next to a defender he wouldn't have been in an offside position...

I've complained often enough about referees getting in the way of attacks and acting as an extra defender. Getting in the way of clearances is just as bad. But I did wonder, in the grand scheme of sh..housery, whether a team down to 10 men might like to relieve the pressure by aiming the ball at...

Correct. Once Haaland is shown to be in an onside position, the only argument is interpretation of whether Enzo is clearly attempting to play a ball which is close when this action impacts on an opponent We've had plenty of instances where it's been agreed that merely wondering about what an...