Search results

Since the red card was to the defender, we can eliminate the keeper's actions (nothing there anyway). Now the defender does put his arm on the attacker's shoulder IMO just outside the penalty area. This was not a huge contact, but it could certainly be argued that for a player running at...

First of all let me commend highly the standard of debate in this thread. So nice to see thoughtful and intelligent discussion that does not descend into cheap insults and backbiting. Give yourself a pat on the back guys! For my own part, I tend to side with those who say deliberate handling...

Besides, here in Australia we have occasional games in 32 degree heat. Let me tell you, even if the teams don't need a drinks break, I do!

I realise that we both apply the Law the same in practice, but the theory here is rather interesting. And I am sorry xpositor but I must respectfully disagree with your respectful disagreement with my disagreement. "The Spirit of the Game" is not a catch all get out that allows referees to...

I respectfully disagree. there is no spirit of the game involved at all, but only a literal reading of the Law. A ball touched by an opponent has ipso facto NOT been "kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate" Askasoccerreferee.com in a question from 2011 explained it succinctly: The offense...

It's there in Law 12: "touches the ball with the hands after: ... ••it has been deliberately kicked to the goalkeeper by a team-mate" Since the last player to touch it (however briefly) was not a team mate, it means the keeper can safely handle the ball.

This is all spot on. Verbal distraction is most likely to affect play if it is before the free kick is taken, and therefore a restart. But I have seen a player running up to tackle while the ball is in play, screaming like a banshee, so it could happen. And remember that you cannot merely...

No, these only apply to physical offences: dissent is a caution and IFK, the IFAB made that clear in their Q & A section, and will be writing it specifically into the Laws from next season.

Before every game I have a (very brief) word to each team. I tell them: "if you get a free kick and want to take it quickly, it's your right, don't even ask: just take it. If there is any reason not too, like a caution or substitution, I will tell you. Remember the opposition have the same...

Why should it? Just because one sport does things in a certain way, why should another? In football, an accidental foul is still a foul, so an accidental double touch is still a double touch.

But why a yellow? That is like cautioning for every foul. A simple IFK is all the Laws require. Unless it becomes persistent...

This is an interesting point though. Many referees assume that a booking is mandatory here, but in fact it is just a simple IFK offence.

The fact that you continue to argue even when you have been correctly informed by about seven referees that you were in the wrong, is a bit of a give-away. And you are going off on tangents about whether he saw you soon enough (doesn't look like it); understood the law (sounds like he may not...

We have been shown videos of fouls, in one of which FIFA are very clear, a goalkeeper jumping with knee up and contacting an opponent is not only a foul but should also be a caution.

Absolutely right! The point where it left the field of play extends from the touchline, right up, for an infinite distance. And I would have zero problems with a player taking the throw in from 30ft in the air. So long as they can keep both feet touching the ground while they did so...

The Law says: "At the moment of delivering the ball, the thrower must: ... • throw the ball ... from the point where it left the field of play" How much more specific do you want it to be? There is a lot in the Laws that is ambiguous...this is simple and clear. If I said to anyone: "throw...

I would allow a metre away as leeway, certainly, I would also allow a metre back from touchline. But why should I suddenly allow TEN metres away from the line escapes me. You are an enigma Mr Padfoot. Sometimes you point to exact turns of phrase in certain laws, if it suits your point of...

It amuses me that Padfoot quotes the Law 15 requirements for a throw in (albeit with the older "delivered" rather than the more recent "thrown") to make his point. When Santa Sangria points out correctly that the actual words Padfoot quoted prove him wrong, then HE is condemned for being...

However since neither the words Trap NOR Pass actually appear in the Law, this is totally irrelevant.

I think it does require both teams to agree (though it could be clearer). Since the players are entitled to an interval, then any request to go without one, would need unanimous agreement (even a single player wanting a break means a break is necessary). If all the players agree THEN the...