Search results

LOTG requires a coin toss; without that you can't legally start the game.

That's interesting - certainly one came from the other. The Spirit of Cricket was formulated in the late 90s and added as a preamble to the laws in 2000. Does the AFC statement predate that?

Cricket has long had "The Spirit of the Game" as a concept. It is actually in the preamble to the laws and reads as follows: Cricket is a game that owes much of its unique appeal to the fact that it should be played not only within its Laws but also within the Spirit of the Game. Any action...

I think it is a very helpful re-wording - the basis of the fake corner was that the movement was so subtle that the defending team didn't notice it. At the very least now the movement has to be clear to the referee and the onus will be on the taker to ensure that the movement is clear - will...

Not really the same thing. Providing names (apart of course from Subs names where there is a requirement in law to provide them) is usually part of the competition rules rather than being a convention - at least it is the the UK. I referee a league that doesn't require teamsheets and therefore...

I realise that, but the thrown object discussion came about from the suggestion that the keeper leaving the bottle on the pitch might be considered to be equivalent to throwing the bottle and it was to that that I was referring.

This suggests that the action is only taken if the goal is not scored so in the OP, if this advice is used, it would not be wrong to award a goal (I would caution the keeper either way.)

I know this is supposed to be a bit of fun and I am probably being a grumpy old fart but: Really?

I refer you to my picture of Argentina 78 above...or any number of stray crisp packets to be found around the country on a windy day. Should play be stopped every time the ball touches a twig on a pitch? I would say it should if the twig makes the ball do something significant that it otherwise...

Not sure what has the age of the photo got to do with it? Not sure that you are being serious but I can think of several. For example, in offside "interfering with play" only happens when the player touches the ball; if that were the case here if an elephant were lose on the pitch play would...

Only if the outside agent interferes with play. If we followed your interpretation, some matches would be non-stop drop ball games...

Goal for me. The referee should only stop the game if the outside agent interferes with play. I think it would be fair to say that as the ball was headed for the goal anyway, the bottle has not interfered and therefore there is no need to stop play

Hackett's reply (The Observer yesterday): No goal. You should have stopped play the moment the ball reached the player you planned to dismiss - he shouldn't be on the pitch and you cannot allow him to benefit from the advantage you awarded the opposition. Call him over and show him a second...

I think this may be the most entertaining aspect to the proposed change. If a foul is committed close to the edge of the area and the players are not sure whether the ref will think it's a) DOGSO and b) a "genuine attempt to play the ball" you could potentially have players from both teams...

I think we all know that players can be divided into two main groups: 1: "not that kind of player." 2: "can be a little bit naughty at times." I think it is safe to assume that all tackles by players in group 1 will be genuine tackles and so they should never be sent off for DOGSO or indeed...

Not exactly. The "emotionally drained" line came from his lawyer, not the magistrates. He was found guilty, fined £120.00 with £135.00 costs but avoided a banning order which would have banned him from all football because he had no previous convictions for football-related offences. He can...

Of course I explained myself. The conversation went something like this: Blue team in unison: "High boot, ref!" Me: "Peeeep! Indirect free kick to red - dangerous play." Blue player: "No ref, it's the other way. It was them that had the high boot." Me: "The kick is for playing in a dangerous...

I think the second part of the question is more interesting and hasn't really been addressed yet. Jacob has, as we all agree, applied the LOTG 100% correctly but because he has given two decisions which none of the players was expecting, his match control has become very difficult. Fortunately...

What do you call a Frenchman wearing sandals? Philippe Philoppe.

No, the exact opposite. They were interfering according to the interpretation Surely judging whether players running at speed are in an offside position or not is exactly what ARs are supposed to do. In fact this is exactly what ARs have to do with players running from an on-side position...