Search results

Refollie, I too am a little confused about how play could restart with a corner, but I think your analysis is correct in respect of the last touch off a defender. It would be nice if it was explicit. However, I have trouble reconciling Section 7 and 9. They seem to overlap and contradict...

Count how many times the words "intentionally" and "deliberately" appear in the laws. and the phrase "attempts to deceive"...its all in the mind.

As a player I witnessed many appeals that were just downright dishonest, and plainly so for all to see. And you don't have to wait long to see similar in the EPL. Could such mendacity ever be considered "a lack of respect for the game" or another UB category? "attempts to deceive the referee" ...

My comment: It would open a can of worms to try to soften this by defining scales of UB, as is done with fouls graded into careless/reckless/excessive. But that is how "Mine!" is treated - as "careless" UB; as UB without a caution. . CapnBloodbeard Response: Capn, I can only infer that...

Richard, I played for many years with a defender (a mate) who used shout "Name?!" when he was going for a header but was worried a teammate might also be playing it without a verbal claim. Needless to say, in the few milliseconds between his "invitation" and the ball arriving, no one called a...

The way I read the law - I quote - "a player must be cautioned for unsporting behaviour". That's what the book says. There seems to be no room in the law for a ref to stop a game for unsporting behaviour (for any reason !) without a caution. UB=caution, plain and simple. It would open a can of...

So my second point is..."Verbally distracting" is listed only once in the laws, under "cautions for unsporting behaviour". So, the actual offense is "unsporting behaviour", the detail is "verbal distraction", the sanction is a yellow/caution, and the restart is a IFK. By the letter of the law...

I've played in a few games where/when a player has shouted "Mine" to declare his intension to play the ball, and the referee has then stopped the game and awarded a free kick. These decisions have been greeted without complaint or dissent. But reading the laws I wonder what infringement has...

I would reinforce this point by mentioning that many refs I speak to - especially the younger ones - don't even realise that play can be stopped for dissent and OffInAbus against an official. Many assume that it must and can only be dealt with at the next stoppage. Why do they think this? a)...

Gents, Thank you for your input. Your interpretation of the new law agrees with my own... but they oppose that is the level 3 referee who I asked in person. I think he was wrong. And I have seen the contradiction of these clauses mentioned in other threads without necessarily being tackled head...

"Its in there"? Which of the 3 places mentioned - 12.1, 12.2 , 12.4 do you mean as "right there". If such misconduct belongs in section 12.1 it should be in there, not left in section 12.2 (by inference) and then corrected in section 12.4. That's not how you write Laws. That's just muddled...

Is there a contradiction in the new rules regarding the restart after misconduct against match officials? Much of the old text remains regarding when to award a DFK and IFK. This includes the "for everything else" clause in Law 12.2 "An indirect free kick is awarded if a player:.. commits any...