probaddie

Pronouns: reader's choice (get creative).

You don't have to win every battle at the same time.

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TheIFAB Taken together, these imply the ball should be dropped for the attacking team inside the defending team's penalty area. Is this actually permitted?

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TheIFAB Law 8.2 says both that:
- the ball should be dropped to the team that would have retained possession if the ball was outside the penalty area when play was stopped
- the ball should be dropped from the place of interference +

[probaddie @probaddie]

@robinmonotti Unless you were present at the match, you are judging though images that are not but numbers in a machine - just more data.

[probaddie @probaddie]

@AaronSides2 @ChristinaUnkel @TaylorTwellman The distinction here isn't between objective and subjective, but fact and Law. By Law 5, the referee is the final arbiter of fact, including if serious foul play (red card offence) was committed. Thus any protest can only be on the basis of misapplication of Law.

[probaddie @probaddie]

@ViralMindLive

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TheIFAB With kicking restarts, is it still necessary the ball be played with the foot to be in play? Or could advantage be applied, e.g., when a kicker accidentally slips and plays a free kick with his/her knee into an opponent's path?

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TheIFAB After scoring a goal, a player lifts his shirt to reveal an undershirt emblazoned with slogans/contact information for his/her personal business (that are not otherwise inflammatory, derisory, offensive, abusive or insulting). What action should the referee take, if any?

[probaddie @probaddie]

@RefereeC21621 (The only reason I already knew it was okay is because I watched the press conference following the AGM this year.)

[probaddie @probaddie]

@RefereeC21621 I agree this is supported, but the wording of the Law is poor. Strictly, the recommendation to review requires the VAR adjudge that Almirón committed the same reckless challenge offence the referee originally determined when in reality he is guilty of a different offence.

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TheIFAB If the review in USA/PAR last night is supported, then the wording of the Law is not in alignment. That outcome requires the VAR attribute the defender's careless/reckless challenge to the attacker when the latter is guilty of a different offence (simulation).

[probaddie @probaddie]

@ugahenne @TheIFAB That isn't supported, because in any case a player being *wrongly cautioned or sent-off* is a necessary condition. Agree the wording needs to be better, though.

[probaddie @probaddie]

@ChristinaUnkel The only problem was awarding the IFK to USA after play had restarted from the original DFK. But great use of the new Law otherwise!

[probaddie @probaddie]

@AndrespupiGil @tobyasky Penalties are different. By Law, the match can't end before an awarded penalty is taken. Not so with all other restarts .

[probaddie @probaddie]

@bobjones656 This is not the Law. There is no requirement that play be immediately stopped, and in itself an extra attacker on the field of play does not invalidate a goal:

[probaddie @probaddie]

@FootbalIhub

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TheIFAB Regarding Law 3 (2026/27): what should happen if a player being substituted fails to leave the field of play in the allowed time and applying the sanction would prohibit his/her side from fielding at least seven players?

[probaddie @probaddie]

@NorthernSuperLg The goal at 0:35 is in the first minute, so 1'.

11:08 -> 12'
12:04 -> 13'
25:55 -> 26'
29:24 -> 30'
33:31 -> 32'
63:65 -> 64'

[probaddie @probaddie]

@NorthernSuperLg The YouTube stream for this match never started 😬

[probaddie @probaddie]

@TaylorTwellman @opencup Almost certainly in. But the AR is looking through the player clearing the ball and shouldn't be guessing at giving a goal, so an understandable miss.