Search results

Not that you will definitely figuratively die--since through skill and charm you can absolutely manage to pull it off--but that you have to choose whether or not this particular incident is worth dying for. Basically "would I be happy to lose my game management and everything that goes with it...

Nike and Umbro seem to have this problem in particular (same company of course), but I have been unable to access, for the last five years, kits in my size (bordering between XS and S) in anything other than black. In Canada, of course, we wear all different colours and there is no prohibition...

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Usually it involves something along the lines of "You haven't created anything all game and you still think I've lost this game? Come off it."

Because we have to choose which hills we die on. A quiet word of abuse can be difficult to accept, but it would also be difficult to accept a sending off for a reason that nobody but you and player know. Still, sometimes, quiet abuse can be necessarily sendings off. In another thread, I wrote...

I never have a pre-match chat with players. It just sets me up for problems later, and I expect the players to know what is expected of them. Even with captains it is simple: Good evening. You're home team so please call it: heads or tails? Would you like to kick off or choose sides? Thanks...

Depends on what you mean by "the right place" and it depends on where the offence occurs. Near the team's own goal line -- they can have up to 10 yards; near the halfway line, a yard or two is all the grace I give. This is entirely contextual. The tip is to use your voice and whistle and be...

Just to be clear: don't ignore but don't hear it. Remove yourself from the area as quickly as you can. You can't justify ignoring a clear offense, but you can justify intelligently not knowing about it.

First of all, being told you've lost control of the game is par for the course. You haven't lost control of the game; the players have lost control of themselves. Deal with incidents appropriately and intelligently and you won't go wrong--even if the players do. Now, in terms of the substitutes...

The glorious province of New Brunswick, Canada.

It is not surely PIADM. It can be, but isn't necessarily. It is one of those "you had to be there" calls. As you point out, though, it is still completely justified to punish the defender for his misconduct (in this case, SFP). Still, there is good reason to suggest that the attacker's offense...

Been here plenty of times before but, for some reason, can't find my old account so here I am.

Oh go on then, where's the video?

Whenever you are being assessed, it is best to referee exactly as you normally would so that you can get valuable feedback on your performance. This feedback can then be implemented going forward.

That's my experience too: often assessors and teams are looking for very different things, especially at that level. Keep your assessors happy and you'll be fine.

England seems to be the only association that does not regard the appearance of fitness to be a major criteria for their top level match officials.

The most fair thing is to uphold the laws that both teams, by virtue of playing the match, agree to play by.

1 - The player having his head low does not mean that the defender can kick him in the face. The defender's inability to predict that the attacker will move into that space is not the attacker's fault. 2 - Yes, the substitute who entered the FOP should have been cautioned for doing so. Ideally...

Why not just them to hold the restart, tell them two players to come over to you and have a public word. "You're very close to bringing the game into disrepute and that is a cautionable offense."

I wouldn't hear him.