Search results

The relevant clause in law is 'unless the goalkeeper has clearly kicked or attempted to kick the ball to release it into play' which was clearly not the case.

Yeah they are Level 3 and 4 referees respectively. We always have to bear in mind the FA rule that 'Registered Referees shall not officiate in any Competition, which is not sanctioned, or match in which unaffiliated clubs compete.' So one hopes that either this is sanctioned, or perhaps not...

From my perspective this has never been a DOGSO because it used to be perfectly legal for a GK to handle a back-pass and when changing the law IFAB only wanted possession to be turned over and did not deem it a serious enough offence to warrant sending off the GK. A good way for this to be...

And the standard kit for non-PGMOL is still supposed to be the current Nike for next season. So really this Puma is a 1 season kit unless imitating PGMOL.

What the heck is 'Pro DNA' Vs 'Grassroots'?

Please let the socks be better than the current :poop:

When the ball has entered the goal it is incorrect in Law to not award the goal for an injury. As @santa sangria says, the main thing here is to make a decision immediately and be clear about whether play is being stopped or not. If in doubt it is usually better to err on the side of player...

Congratulations to all who have been appointed to finals. I was rather surprised yet delighted to receive an appointment to my first ever County final this season after not being appointed to any earlier round fixtures at all, I thought I might have been forgotten about! Not sure what to put the...

Well done buddy!

Great point, it is definitely a DOGSO.

This is a trick. The only way I can imagine a player being able to play a ball along the ground without using their foot and it not be a trick is when the player has fallen to the ground for some other reason. For those saying not a trick, would that still be the case if the player...

Yes as we could just as easily say that within the spirit of the law an incorrect throw-in can be considered not an offence. But their post is far more definitively worded than their explanation!

That's really funny because it used to be Law that the ball had to be played forwards at kick-off, which is why there were always two players standing over it so one could tap it slightly 'forward' to the other.

Surprised the protest wasn't accepted over that penalty retake which isn't really justifiable in law.

It's a simple rule. If there is a serious injury then we have to stop play immediately. Safety comes before fairness.

We can take our pick for how Cucurella could have been sanctioned. Unsporting behaviour for the type of handball it was Unsporting behaviour for simulating being fouled Dissent towards the AR I'm assuming he received none of the above. Though I don't think you would issue 1 and 2 as separate...

Looks like a good decision to me. Initially some mutual holding, attacker stops but defender doesn't and looks enough to impede the attacker's movement. If you're a defender holding in the penalty area then you are taking a big risk.

The Nottinghamshire Senior League appoints assistant referees for the premier division.

It's slightly ambiguous from how you have described it. It seems most likely the foul occurred before the offside offence, in which case your actions were correct. But if the offside offence occurred before the foul then the offside should have been penalised. The CAR's flag came after the foul...

It would make sense because the current Nike was brought in as a 4-year kit and we're currently in the 3rd year of it.