Search results

Yes, the throw-in went to the first team to touch the ball once it was out of play: which is why (over a century after the Law was changed) we still refer to "touch" and "touch-lines". A similar "first to touch the ball" situation happened if the ball crossed the goal line (but not a goal)...

Why do you also take a corner from ON the field of play? Or a free kick? A Goal Kick? Kick off? Or a dropped ball? Because every single other restart, without exception takes place ON the field of play. It would actually be a far better question to ask why you can also take a throw in...

There is nothing that says it has to be a penalty. The Law quoted by Lincs22 clearly says "where a player commits an offence....AND the referee awards a penalty kick" this is not saying the referee HAS to give a penalty, merely giving instructions what to do IF a penalty has to be given. USSF...

If a defender shouted "leave it" and the attacker did, then that is an obvious call of "verbally distracts an opponent", as you say normally IFK and yellow card. But if it takes away a goal scoring opportunity, then it is a clear case of DOGSO - which only requires that it be a matter of...

Here in Australia we are told that we can play advantage one of two ways: 1 Call advantage right away if a clear advantage is present. If we do this we are discouraged from pulling play back afterwards. 2 Wait a second or two, then if advantage accrues, call "advantage" ( to let the players...

Here in Western Australia each teams must provide a CAR or the game does not go ahead. We have been told that we need only ask for ball in and out of play - whether we request the CAR to flag offsides or not is up to each referee. In actual fact most refs get them to give offsides. Now I...

Miley Cyrus, it really seems to me that your only reason for continually posting is a rather desperate attempt to claim that you were right all along, and to denigrate those who actually are trying to learn. It can be hard to admit that we make mistakes...I for one will cheerfully admit that...

It can't be SFP, that can only be committed against an opponent (check the Glossary), but if it is taken as Violent Conduct then you can be red carded for attacking your own manager....players have been sent off in the past for attacking fans who invaded the pitch...

I also really like Mr Elleray's answer, which makes complete sense. If a foul is committed during a game, and we play advantage then (after the two or three seconds grace has expired) there is no calling it back, we treat play as if the foul never happened (in terms of gameplay at least...

Basically the Laws make no mention at all about saying "mine" or "leave it". What they do say is that it is a cautionable offence for Unsporting Behaviour if a player: "verbally distracts an opponent during play or at a restart" (Law 12) So if two attackers were breaking free, with no...

Spot on. But watch out for the player whose heel is on the touchline but raises onto his toes as he takes the throw. This is now a foul throw.

The real problem with discussing "intentional" or "deliberate" actions in football is that the Laws of the Game are a patchwork cobbled together over 154 years, and at different times different authors clearly intended the words to be taken in different senses. Back in mid Victorian times, the...

I don't feel it is a referee's job to decide this. I too have a pressure gauge, and always check the ball(s) I am given before the game. If they are under inflated (very common). then I will inflate them to just over the minimum which is as you say 8.5 psi (as I say 600 g/cm squared). If the...

Guys you are all arguing based on just one paragraph. Later in the Law after talking about IFK for a double touch, or DFK for a handling after a TI, we find the simple statement: "For any other infringement of this Law the throw-in is taken by a player of the opposing team." Hence the...

Why scrap it as a Law, when it actually works just as you are suggesting? It's really a sensible compromise. OK, so no-one rigidly sticks to it as 6 seconds, but if a keeper starts clearly wasting time, then you can enforce it as written. It has to be a reasonably short amount of time, if the...

While I find the way Padfoot expresses his opinion to be over bearing and off putting; I must say I find myself in agreement with his views here. While the Laws clearly prefer us to make a decision on a near simultaneous touch by goalkeeper and attacker, I also feel we need to shade this is...

Actually, despite what Padfoot says, I for one am certainly here to further my understanding of the Laws, rather than find ways to re-interpret them. And listening to everyone's discussion has really sorted it out for me. I would now say that I am coming down 100 per cent on the side of those...

You are obviously correct, but whichever way you read this causes a problem. I am just trying to make sense of why they have added all the stuff about held between the hand and another surface, since your definition above covers that already (in fact more than covers it, since by that definition...

It can be very difficult sometimes to interpret the Laws, as they have often (as with the old offside Law) not said precisely what was meant. We cannot however just apply real world meanings. The Law is clearly giving a definition of "control" as we need to apply it in Law. Now (thanks to...

You say the player "under no pressure", passed to a PIOP: but how do you know for sure that the player was not affected by the foul expecting a free kick to be called and not making a good tactical decision with the pass? Now if the pass is made to someone, not offside, who runs in and has a...