Search results

Oh, come now, @Padfoot ... Either you didn't know the answer, in which case I have helped you out by referring you to the wise words of Padfoot, our resident ref-to-the-letter-of-the-law fundamentalist; or you did know the answer and so would seem merely to be stirring things up unnecessarily...

erm... :eek:

The LOTG actually specify "strike or attempt to strike" in the same way as they say "trip or attempt to trip" so what's the difference between a trip that makes no contact (which is what I saw in the Remy example) and a strike that makes no contact?

Jermain Pennant played with one about ten years ago. As I recall he had special padding made for it and it had to be cleared before hand by the FA.

As already stated, I would have given the penalty. For me, this is exactly what "attempts to trip" is supposed to deal with. A player makes a heroic effort to evade a challenge that , if the evasion hadn't happened, would have been a trip and in doing so is sufficiently dis-advantaged that he...

Because the LOTG specifically forbid it: P70 Jewellery All items of jewellery (necklaces, rings, bracelets, earrings, leather bands, rubber bands, etc.) are strictly forbidden and must be removed. Using tape to cover jewellery is not acceptable. Referees are also prohibited from wearing...

No need to be condescending...most of us are trying to have a measured debate. I for one am genuinely unsure what the law means and am trying to get some clarification . I know exactly what those three words mean but it's the combination that I'm struggling with. Are you saying that at the...

Because on the one hand you have said: So judge throws on what they look like, on the other you have said: So don't judge throws on what they look like.

And yet after three pages I still haven't seen a definitive explanation of what "delivers the ball from behind and over his head" means. To say "you know it when you see it" is not helpful if you don't know exactly what it looks like and is a contradiction of "Read the LOTG". As previously...

Shearer then says that it should be a penalty because the keeper "impeded" him. No, Alan. Impeding is an IDFK (although I agree that it should have been a penalty for the reason HIYD says.)

I would say that unless there is some unusual factor - huge gust of wind for example - that this is a foul throw as the thrower has failed to face the field of play.

I would describe these as throws...and some start behind the head. If done with a football would you penalise and if so why (assuming they had kept both feet on the ground)?

Ermm...yes you did... Nonetheless, would you allow it and if not, why not?

I am genuinely not sure whether you should or shouldn't. What does "delivered" mean in this context? Does it mean that at the moment that he ball is thrown, the ball is both behind and above the head and if so does it mean that the whole of the ball should be behind the whole of the head or...

Nope - Law 15: - has part of each foot either on the touch line or on the ground outside the touch line.

Front of feet can be over the line as long as part of each foot is on or behind the line.

Not if he thought the holding continued into the area. P120 of the LOTG: If a defender starts holding an attacker outside the penalty area and continues holding him inside the penalty area, the referee must award a penalty kick.

Thanks - missed that - but I would still say that if I have inspected substitutes before kick off then I have inspected before they enter the field of play. Doesn't say immediately before..

As far as I can see, nowhere in the LOTG does it say that the referee has to go to the halfway line to check substitutes coming on. The only relevant section that I can find is in the powers and duties of the referee which states that the referee "ensures that the players’ equipment meets the...

On the Sussex FA website at the bottom of this page there is a tool which seems to allow you to check suspensions throughout the country.