Search results

Necessary force can’t be the actual minimum amount of force else all contact that isn’t a challenge for the ball is a red card.

Agree that the threshold for excessive is lower against a match official but it’s not zero. Whilst brutality isn’t required for VC, it can be a guide for what kind and severity of actions warrant the sanction. Was the push savage, ruthless or deliberately violent? No. I’ve had players push me...

I’m happy with yellow. He’s pushing him out of the way to take the free kick quickly.

There’s two definitions of includes in English; “for example” and “has as one of its features”. In isolation, both work here. IFAB has clarified they mean “for example”. Therefore, we apply the Law that way. The only case when we should reject IFAB rulings is when there is no interpretation...

The 4th criteria isn’t required. This Q&A is wrong btw. If the defender is cautioned for a reckless challenge or sent-off for using excessive force, the restart is a direct free kick.

There’s always “using unauthorised electronic or communication equipment and/or behaving in an inappropriate manner as a result of using electronic or communication equipment”

Coaches must behave in a responsible manner.

Nothing better than discussing hypotheticals. :) Accept that the push isn’t careless and play is stopped to issue a yellow card for unsporting behaviour. Don’t think we ever get to “any other offence, not mentioned in the Laws” though since there is a restart specified, a direct free kick as...

DFK no? Offence involves contact.

I mean cricket has less officiating controversies. Maybe we should borrow Law 31.1 (I Googled the citation, I don’t have the cricket Laws memorised lol).

For penalties, adopt the wait and see approach (for most things really). Wait a few seconds to see if the advantage materialises. If it does, awesome! Signal advantage (and shout “Play on” or “Advantage” (I prefer “Advantage”)) and get brownie points with the assessor, players etc. If it...

I thought about what I would’ve done if an offside offence had been committed instead when I was attempting to play advantage. If committing the offence was the only option (for lack of a better phrase), i.e. there were no viable options for the player other than passing to a teammate in an...

Yeah, inelegant wording from myself (I’ve made it impossible to punish encroachment). What I should’ve said if the goalkeeper offends before the kick is taken **and the referee signals for the kick to be taken again** then there’s no retake.

This is in reference to the keeper encroaching after (which didn’t actually happen in this situation? My reading comprehension is not up there today). But yeah, if the keeper offends before the ball is kicked and clearly moves, then there’s no retake as the kick hasn’t been taken in the first place.

I mean you can award a retake. The goalkeeper’s offence just needs to have “clearly impacted” the kicker. Now, how this would ever happen in practice, I have no clue, I’ve just seen an opportunity to be pedantic about the LotG.

Based on how you’ve described it, I 100% agree. Often players love consistency so much they want the same decision made across dissimilar situations. There is a meaningful difference between an attacker taking a shot and then colliding with the goalkeeper and an attacker trying to beat the...

His hand moves towards the ball. That’s deliberate handling. No need to consider distance, deflections etc, leave that stuff for unnaturally bigger.

In most cases, we would struggle to justify a red card for endangering the safety or excessive force for a hair pull. If we want to justify a red card for hair pulling, which I think we do (definitely not biased by my long hair), we need to fall back on brutality, an act which is “savage...

Football also expects that an IDFK is awarded when a goalkeeper handles the ball inside their own penalty area after attempting to kick the ball to release it into play after a teammate has deliberately passed it to them. Edit to add that football also expects the goalkeeper to be sent off for...

If I’m understanding the article correctly, a team official was cautioned for delaying the restart of play by the opposing team? I’m certainly hoping not cause even I know that’s wrong in Law. And he also deliberately threw or kicked an object onto the field of play which is also a sending-off...