Search results

Overall movement is towards goal, ball ends up entering penalty area, although the fouled attacker would have regained possession prior to that anyway had he not been fouled - and would have had an open goal to shoot at from a very reasonable angle and distance, before the defender tracking back...

How is that not DOGSO?

It's definitely DOGSO - direction of play is towards goal and the attacker would have regained control had it not been for the foul. He doesn't go "studs up" on his knee - it's the side of the boot that's making contact. Reckless trip, not SFP to me.

One small but important point of law - for the first caution, if you haven't submitted it yet, put it down as C4 not C5, as a caution for failing to respect the required distance would be incorrect in law here 🙂

If my memory serves me correctly, there used to be guidance from The FA that a plain wedding band could be taped up if it couldn't be removed (despite the LotG explicitly prohibiting "any kind of jewellery" since 1997).

Looks like it might be studs coming down onto the player's foot for the first clip, but difficult to tell from that clip alone. Think careless or reckless could be justified either way. I'm really not seeing violent conduct by either player in the second clip though - AA for both for me.

I think the only people in football who wouldn't expect this to be penalised are those who make no effort to learn/understand the laws. I'd say the majority of players and even the majority of spectators would be aware that this isn't allowed.

Local referee, you say? Don't forget that the indirect free kick would be taken from where the player is when they do the trick, rather than where the keeper is, even if the keeper handles it.

Contact looks to be extremely close to the line if not on it, so I don't have a problem with the referee going inside. However, I don't think it's a foul. Looks like keeper has played the ball fairly, attacker has got there second and gone over the keeper. As for the touch, I don't think any...

You're not related to Sir Humphrey Appleby by any chance are you?

Yes, because a goalkeeper can't be challenged when they have possession.

That logic can't be applied to a defender - if they have possession they can still be legally challenged.

He doesn't carry it out though - he drops it in the area, and handles it outside of the area. Big difference because the ball can be challenged for. Given the direction the attacker is moving and the defender in close proximity, I'm not convinced the attacker is getting a shot off before...

If the player pleads not guilty to the charge then you might be contacted about attending the personal hearing; if he pleads guilty or doesn't ask for a personal hearing then just sit back and wait to hear the result.

Well again, unless it's NLN/S or above, it might as well be the law - I'd be fuming if my AR missed an offside/ball out of play etc. because they were too busy checking a player off the field.

In theory yes, in practice I'd rather have the AR keeping their eyes on the FoP rather than checking the player during play.

In my early days as a ref, I had a game where the home team's player-manager said afterwards that (despite his team losing) he thought I'd had a good game, but there was one thing I'd got wrong in law - I'd allowed a player who'd gone off for treatment to come back on from the goal line during...

Certainly not SPA for me as the attacker has already played the pass and the foul hasn't interfered with that. From this angle alone I don't think the tackle is reckless either - looks like the attacker's left foot lands on the defender's right foot or leg, rather than the defender making any...

I assume that the league are asking for the report as they will want to know exactly why the match was abandoned, without relying on the word of either team involved. As @RustyRef has said, the league can't deal with the abandonment until the County FA have, but at least they would be able to...

This is the Championship, not Sunday League Division 6. Any attacker is easily going to control that ball and have the GSO. The defender is not "rapidly closing the distance" - he's quick enough to maintain his relative proximity, it's only because the attacker has been tripped and therefore...