Search results

Ah, that reminds me of the third example I was going to post, but then couldn't remember it exactly: This zinger from France:

So, I've finally started my journey by doing my associations LOTG quiz prior to doing the training course. Interesting thing that I never knew until today: If a match is extended because of a penalty being awarded (I'll use Italy v Australia in the 2006 World Cup as an example, penalty awarded...

It's weird. I don't think I would ever allow myself to be in a position like that if officiating with VAR. I wouldn't let someone else decide for me, I'd be adamant to go check for myself, on the advice of whoever is in my ear.

I have seen red's for less abuse to a referee. A) Danny Vukovic being sent off in an A-League grand final and a 15 month suspension (later reduced to 9 I think, which meant missing Australia's last appearance in the Olympics in 2008) for this: B) I had this incident in my head thinking it...

Just to clarify, what exactly is the consensus of "the EPL version" compared to lets say the "Australian version" (considering I'm in Australia, and the video above is in Australia.) Is it just the fact that we have a sideline monitor available to the referee? The World Cup was the same method...

Has anyone ever heard the story of this in Australia? In the 2005-06 A-League season, Damian Mori (was Australia's top goalscorer before Tim Cahill), playing for Perth Glory, was told the same thing: to take off his wedding ring. He told the referee he couldn't, and the referee didn't let him...

Of the three possibilities, I'd honestly lean more towards the third. Although, I've bolded the first to ask a bit more of a follow up: Can a tackle like that be split up into two different incidents? I'm guessing in that instance, red card is for SFP or VC, since the tackle would be deemed...

So, as I have mentioned in another post or two, I have not yet become a referee, but am looking to do so in the Australian grassroots offseason. As such, I'm sort of going through my memories of times when I've thought a referee has made the wrong call, and wanted to discuss such instances...

Ah, yes that makes sense, reduces the amount of substitutes named then, rather than players on the field.

So, when it says "cannot be replaced", that player must play the 90 minutes?

I would tend to think that previously (as someone posted earlier), until the laws were re-written recently, that this would be a retake in the past. But in the event the mis-kick comes off the foot, and then it's played at a second time after it is in play, then it could be DOGSO, and IFK...

I have never seen that before in 15 years. But, also don't see the problem haha

Riverina initially, but now based in Canberra

This is something I'd like to clarify in my head before I start refereeing as well. I always remember, during my first year playing (Under 13s), a referee continued play when our winger stopped a clearance by sticking his arm up in the air, and regaining possession after the ball hit him facing...

Happened similarly in the A-League this year: A player from Western United was off receiving treatment away to Wellington Phoenix. He rejoined the field without being waved back on by the referee, and cleared the ball for a corner. Referee gave an indirect free-kick in the penalty area..

And that's when they Air-Bud rules in. Doesn't happen in Football very much, obviously. Unrelated to football, but I have been watching a series on YouTube that explains how sports have dealt with uncommon scenarios that either are vague, or not dealt with at all in their rules. I would think...

I'll admit to it. Although, I only joined recently, and am going to be taking my Level 4's in Australia this summer (next couple months), which is why I joined, so I could sort of get a read-in before I actually start.

In the league I most recently did team managing for (3rd tier in Australia, so kit-boy is more like it), we had to provide the association with a First and Second kit, and they would mandate to us 2-3 days earlier what to wear, along with what the referees would wear.. Some solutions included...

Yes, the Australian association (or the A-League itself now it has become independent) decided to fork out the funds to pay for the hawk-eye lines for offside, but not for GLT. Weird situation, not sure it makes jobs any easier, considering this is the second time in three games this has...

These lines they use are a bit weird. Not sure if anyone saw the disallowed "did it cross the line" in Australia's A-League this weekend?