Search results

Did not think this is correct, as the ball is not in play when a restart is not taken correctly.

I think you are supposed to press 'sync matches' first on the Refsix watch app menu, which you haven't mentioned. This video might be outdated but seems to show how to sync your matches I am on WearOS / Android so my own gear works differently from yours.

On the Refsix Garmin menu it should tell you how many games are synced and what time it last synced, is all that showing correctly?

Ticks the brutality box, but unfortunately the example set at the top for this type of challenge is not robust.

Some interesting incidents here 0:26 - VAR 'factually' disallows a goal for ball out of play when the footage is not conclusive 4:37 - VAR 'factually' disallows a goal for handball when the footage is not conclusive 12:37 - VAR agrees with on-field decision that player should be sent off for...

That's right, the only potential offence is handball so there is no issue as long as the GK has not touched the ball with their hands/arms outside the penalty area.

Persistent offences I imagine, if there's supposed to be 2 occurences. I'd tend to agree its unlikely to happen more than once.

OK I hadn't noticed that. I doubt anything is being put into Law and this will only be based on the harshest possible interpretation of persistent offences. As a mere mortal not subject to PL directives I think warning at the second, caution at the third is sufficient and can't be argued with.

This isn't cautionable.

The feedback from the trials is pretty encouraging. Apparently it has only had to be penalised four times despite strict enforcement. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cwyg7jyp82do

I am sure that if we believe a GK is seriously injured then we will stop play immediately and following treatment restart with a dropped ball to the GK. If we are doubtful that the GK is seriously injured, then they have hold of the ball anyway so there is no harm in letting the 8 seconds lapse...

There is no point only counting from when they get up, because then they will just waste more time on the floor. If an attacker is so close as to prevent a GK releasing then we already have what we need in Law to deal with that.

1. Not deliberate, body hasn't been made bigger, no offence. 2. No goal, this is immediately after the ball touches the attacker's arm. It's about 2 seconds from arm touch to getting the shot away.

RefSix CEO and Co-Founder Hassan Rajwani features in his first Step 6 middle. What sanction are you all giving for this? (starts at 5:44)

I am rather certain that the 12.2 change will be applied consistently. As there is a visual indication of the majority of the count it will be clearer to observers whether the referee is intending to enforce the law and it will be picked up that way. 8 seconds is fairer too as if a GK makes a...

I would have preferred no VAR involvement here. There are shirt pulls and it is not obvious that Young's movement was not impeded at all, so the on-field decision should stand. Once VAR has got involved then the simulation has to be identified and penalised.

C1-AA if this happened in the Premier League...

I take that part from the VAR protocol as just summarising the types of incidents that can be reviewed. It does not override that section in Law 14 or need to restate the full text of it. So VAR can review it, but should only intervene when Law 14 says the player is penalised.

My issue (and this was mentioned during the VAR discussions) is according to Law 14 the encroaching defender who plays the ball can only be penalised if it prevents the opponents from scoring, attempting to score or creating a goal-scoring opportunity. In this case the only impact was preventing...

On the Lewis-Skelly incident, the comment from Webb 'there are some considerations that might support a red card, but there's a whole host of others that say it's not quite there' does not quite support his conclusion that VAR should have intervened. Disappointingly this feels very much like...