Search results

And if the VAR recommends an onfield review, and the referee doesn't think it's DOGSO - the decision is still no FK?

"Shouldn't matter" is the operative clause. It plainly does.

In the Bristol City v Sheffield United thread there was a brief history lesson on another "C" - cynical.

But missing the handball offence was a clear and obvious mistake - and "away from goal" was a subjective decision. It's actually a real mess, isn't it? The onfield referee couldn't make a subjective decision whether it was DOGSO because he'd made a clear and obvious mistake, but the VAR (perhaps...

"Sell the decision"? Sell that he missed it but can't even give a FK/YC?

We may have some younger refs on here who don't know how DOGSO law changed. Originally the wording was "moving toward the player's goal" (the player committing the offence) Then it was "an opponent moving towards the opponents’ goal" (commited by a player on an opponent) Then it was "an...

which he was denied!

Simply, you can't decide DOGSO by which is the player's better foot.

I'd like you as my defence lawyer

Be fair. He was trying to cut the VAR some slack. If the VAR doesn't understand the law, why should a pundit?

...or apply the laws of the game. Then it wouldn't be taught in training.

...or attackers are good at knowing who's behind them and changing direction to cut across a defender who's gaining on them

Time too for a wider debate about where the "not enough" mantra has led us for pushes, pulls, grabs, and rugby tackles at corners.

Random hand, just a grapple, not even aggressive... I'd like to say "get a grip"... how do you know how hard he was squeezing the opponent's windpipe?

It was to get rid of the "professional foul" where someone clear on goal was chopped down outside the PA. Specifically:

My first "Referees' Chart and Players' Guide to the Laws of the Game" was a quarter the size of the LOTG now. More international football and more televised football are what's caused it - because what the game expects now is consistency. Refereeing "reinterpretations" haven't helped - e.g. for...

Perhaps your emotions seem to have read into that post stuff about City that was nothing to do with the daftness of the drafting of the law. If they start with a concept like "making the body unnaturally bigger", i.e. a physical impossibility, and then someone complains that "unnatural position"...

But that makes even more of a nonsense of the English version. "A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation." If you can have your hand...

That's pedantic, even for referees! "A player is considered to have made their body unnaturally bigger when the position of their hand/arm is not a consequence of, or justifiable by, the player’s body movement for that specific situation." You can only make your body unnaturally bigger (which...

Look at it live then. From the FA highlights... (I hadn't seen that angle when I posted the OP.)