Search results

Instead of playing advantage (in the arms up, shouting out sense), why not just quietly let play progress for two seconds and then make your decision?

Even if he wasn't already on a caution, I would walk him. It is OFFINABUS, not AA. AA is more like squaring up, shoulders back etc.

That may be helpful with the player(s) in the immediate vicinity, but I don't know that it is going to have the desired effect on the technical areas, people in the stands, and the folks watching from home. In this case, I think you either caution the player or do nothing and, later, give him a...

I think the correct decision here is to give nothing. Contact does not cause the fall, is minimal, and is an expected part of the game. It is normal context, not unfair contact. Still, there is some, slight contact so not completely a dive either.

Easy yellow card.

Foul contact was made. That's a foul. Of course Mane goes over like a sack of bricks and tries to sell the call, but that doesn't change the fact.

The reason that it is better to use the actual word advantage is because it lets everyone know you've seen the foul, but there is a reason to keep playing. Just shouting "keep going" or "play on" could indicate to the players that you do not believe a foul has occured or that you see their...

I am not really sure I fully understand what is happening here but we should remember that with finite resources, an organization must choose where those resources go. The USSF has a mandate to try to develop the game to the highest level possible to give the senior MNT the best opportunity to...

If a player dissents but the ref is deaf, does the player make a sound?

Yes and, as I said, it is not the recommended path here. The recommended path is to loudly rebuke the captain and make sure he knows that OFFINABUS is a sending-off offense and does not require any swearing.

Sounds like you handled it well and the players accepted your decision. It is worth noting that, even if you have an inkling that it might be a head injury, it is better to stop play to attend to it immediately. If you're unsure, then what you did is all you could do.

I completely disagree with the overall idea that if you didn't hear it, you can't send him off. In a case as heated and emotional as this, when you have a player saying "yeah I said that" and you can be reasonably sure that he actually did, then you send him off.

You cannot caution the captain for what you heard said since you do not know who said it. You can, however, caution the captain for dissent for refusing to identify the player who said it when asked. It would be the same if you asked a player to come to you to have a chat and he refuses. This is...

So my opinion is that, when it comes to dissent, you decide what constitutes the line and stick with it. If you're happy to have low-level back chat, then you allow low-level back chat. The frequency of the chat is not the issue, nor is whether or not you find it annoying. If you've decided that...

So another point here: you say there were two incidents. The first was a foul outside the PA and the second was a foul almost immediately after in the PA. Why would you not give advantage on the first one and punish the second?

I probably would have told the kicking player that had he said nothing, you would have cautioned the other guy. But now he gets away with it because you don't want to caution both of them. Then, gently but forcefully, remind him that you can handle those sorts of things. As a general rule, at...

27 minutes of added time?! What in all that is holy justifies that?!

DFK is sufficient. Absolutely correct decision. Congrats on the plum appointments, btw. When you're on the Prem line, remember us little ones.

Next time, have a word with both captains and should it persist, sin bin them.

Poisoned Chalice