Search results

I would go with allow it. if he protest after the goal as well then caution him. I think the attacker may prefer a goal to the defender getting cautioned.

Are you being deliberately being obtuse.? if it's more advantageous for them to take it quick but the defenders are less than 10 yards away then why in God's name would you stop them.

exactly. the defenders can less than 10 yards but only they decide whether to stop a quick free kick or not

1. that's not what I am saying at all. please reread my post and don't misconstrue it. 2. I am not taking repsonsibility for the actions of players. if defenders are within 10 yards and the attacker decides to take it quick then that is not my fault. if the defender tries to stop being taken...

if they want to take it quick, crack on s long as its quick. nd if the opponent tries to stop it, they will go in the book. I won't reward a team that commits a foul.

why not? they are the ones that have been offended against. I will fetch my pop corn now

whats the big deal with flat sole shoes on them pitches? surely they will cause less damage to the pitch

who was stopping you from wearing them? and why?

no one knows what he was cautioned for. he could have been cautioned for say his wedding ring, which he subsequently took off. maybe the ref simply overlooked his undershirt/tape etc.

when else do you give decision other than based on the actions of a player :wall:

another slant on the same question in the OP. does the keeper not have more protection and he has more range of "natural movement" in carrying out his duties. for instance when going for a 50/50 cross into the box a keeper is a lot more vulnerable so I am more likely to interpret and attacker...

I don't know what i was thinking when I asked the question. I was having a brain fart

may I enquire what the correct should be if it is the team that conceded a goal the ones that carried out the substitution? surely it doesn't sound fair to reward them by cancelling goal?

I saw this on a Facebook group. may I have the thoughts of you fine ladies and gents I've had numerous conversations with dads of goalkeepers and nearly all come away with the same responses, "The Keeper has a right to protect him/herself" or "as the referee, you have to defer to protecting...

Couldn't agree more. You don't need excuses. If you think the player safety and welfare is imperiled then you gave to take action. That is what you are there for as a referee. Especially if they are children in which case you may have a legal obligation

with this particular case one thing we should consider is that it's a children's game so we do have extra, safeguarding responsibilty. if i think the player is distressed, and is only staying because someone is shouting they need them on then, i may insist the player stays off the

After a good first half, within first 20 mins of the second half, i gave a free kick that led to a goal, a penalty that the home team strongly disagreed with and i pulled back an advantage after the offended player (having never fully recovered his balance for the) let off a half hearted shot...

i completely agree with you. but their is a general question that may need clarification. if the physio has to leave the grounds for non football related reasons will the game continue?

What if the physio is to leave the game for reasons other than dismissal by the referee. Does the game continue?

Thanks for that.